New trains for East Midlands Franchise

[Mordac]

Let's just hope someone, somewhere has got a plan that's going to surprise us all

I think a ton of lawyers in Perthshire are working on it.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Interesting. Although a fair comparison with a 9-coach 80x would have to be a 10-coach Meridian, as this has similar length and passenger space (athough the 80x would probably have a lot more seats).

The Voyager/Meridian was a heavyweight even by the standards of its time, although the 185 was even worse.

Wikipedia is the source, so take the following with a pinch of salt

A class 800 is 438 t for a 9 car 234 m train (with 4700 hp)
A 220 is 186t for a 4 car, 92m train, so a theoretical 10 car, 230m 220 would weight about 465 t (with 7500 hp)
(I'm assuming the 222 isn't substantially different)
A 221 is 227 t for a 4 car, 92 m train so a 10-car 221 would weigh in the region of 567 t (also with 7500 hp)

So a 220/222 isn't massively heavier than an 802, about 6% heavier, so needs "only" 7000hp to have the power:weight ratio as a 220
However a 221 can keep 220 timings, presumably could also keep 222 timings on the MML?
A 10-car 221 would weigh a whopping 30% more than a 9-car 800, so to achieve the same power to weight , an 80x would need something like 5750hp
This also tallies with other posters here that have said that a 222 with an engine out is able to keep time, and that they've been derated to 700hp
Suggests a 9-car 80x might be able to get by with 6 engines?
The other point is that if you're DfT and your actual ask is "we want the same London - Nottingham/Sheffield journey time", you can lose a bit of time on diesel North of Kettering, and make it back on electric power further South.

I think areal challenge for Hitachi could be re-engineering costs. EMT has a very complex fleet (operating 5 types: 4, 5 & 7-car 222 and 6 & 8-car HST). If Abellio are looking for a common fleet, with only 1 "half-length" 5-car train that will also fit on the 240m platforms that are in the specification for the MML upgrade, then a 26m vehicle length is a bit of a pain, unless there's 3m of empty space under 80x vehicles?

 

[edwin_m]

Wikipedia is the source, so take the following with a pinch of salt

A class 800 is 438 t for a 9 car 234 m train (with 4700 hp)
A 220 is 186t for a 4 car, 92m train, so a theoretical 10 car, 230m 220 would weight about 465 t (with 7500 hp)
(I'm assuming the 222 isn't substantially different)
A 221 is 227 t for a 4 car, 92 m train so a 10-car 221 would weigh in the region of 567 t (also with 7500 hp)

So a 220/222 isn't massively heavier than an 802, about 6% heavier, so needs "only" 7000hp to have the power:weight ratio as a 220
However a 221 can keep 220 timings, presumably could also keep 222 timings on the MML?
A 10-car 221 would weigh a whopping 30% more than a 9-car 800, so to achieve the same power to weight , an 80x would need something like 5750hp
This also tallies with other posters here that have said that a 222 with an engine out is able to keep time, and that they've been derated to 700hp
Suggests a 9-car 80x might be able to get by with 6 engines?
The other point is that if you're DfT and your actual ask is "we want the same London - Nottingham/Sheffield journey time", you can lose a bit of time on diesel North of Kettering, and make it back on electric power further South.

I think areal challenge for Hitachi could be re-engineering costs. EMT has a very complex fleet (operating 5 types: 4, 5 & 7-car 222 and 6 & 8-car HST). If Abellio are looking for a common fleet, with only 1 "half-length" 5-car train that will also fit on the 240m platforms that are in the specification for the MML upgrade, then a 26m vehicle length is a bit of a pain, unless there's 3m of empty space under 80x vehicles?

More interesting thoughts. Looks like the quote I used for the weight of the 222 was way out, and the weight saving so much touted in the early stages of the IET programme has turned out to be pretty insignificant!

However I believe 221s can't match 220 timings and all XC Voyager journeys are now timed for 221s (without tilt) so either unit can keep to time. So based on those actual figures I believe the 80x would struggle to match 222 timings.

I also suspect the time savings on the electrified section won't amount to much. Bi-modes will make few stops south of Kettering (assuming Corby gets EMUs instead) and the benefit from quicker acceleration away from speed restrictions is only likely to be a handful of seconds each time.

 

[tbtc]

Its highly unlikely that the 800 and 802s are the most powerful bi modes that Hitachi can design. They were not meant to run at 125mph on diesel power and the design reflects that

This bears repeating.

I've seen a lot of criticism on here over 800/802s on the grounds that they couldn't match HST times on the sections of the GWML that hadn't been electrified yet due to Network Rail delays... despite the fact that they were designed to be doing 125mph on electric on these sections since there were meant to be wires...

...now the argument is that they won't be able to match 222 timings on the MML despite the fact that they were never designed to do 125mph on diesel - I'm sure that if you asked Hitachi to build trains capable of 125mph whilst self powered then they'd do so but it seems strange to criticise trains for not being able to do something that they were never designed for is stretching things a bit!

 

[Chester1]

Wikipedia is the source, so take the following with a pinch of salt

A class 800 is 438 t for a 9 car 234 m train (with 4700 hp)
A 220 is 186t for a 4 car, 92m train, so a theoretical 10 car, 230m 220 would weight about 465 t (with 7500 hp)
(I'm assuming the 222 isn't substantially different)
A 221 is 227 t for a 4 car, 92 m train so a 10-car 221 would weigh in the region of 567 t (also with 7500 hp)

So a 220/222 isn't massively heavier than an 802, about 6% heavier, so needs "only" 7000hp to have the power:weight ratio as a 220
However a 221 can keep 220 timings, presumably could also keep 222 timings on the MML?
A 10-car 221 would weigh a whopping 30% more than a 9-car 800, so to achieve the same power to weight , an 80x would need something like 5750hp
This also tallies with other posters here that have said that a 222 with an engine out is able to keep time, and that they've been derated to 700hp
Suggests a 9-car 80x might be able to get by with 6 engines?
The other point is that if you're DfT and your actual ask is "we want the same London - Nottingham/Sheffield journey time", you can lose a bit of time on diesel North of Kettering, and make it back on electric power further South.

I think areal challenge for Hitachi could be re-engineering costs. EMT has a very complex fleet (operating 5 types: 4, 5 & 7-car 222 and 6 & 8-car HST). If Abellio are looking for a common fleet, with only 1 "half-length" 5-car train that will also fit on the 240m platforms that are in the specification for the MML upgrade, then a 26m vehicle length is a bit of a pain, unless there's 3m of empty space under 80x vehicles?

26m x 9m = 234m. There is no need for anything shorter than 9 coaches for the intercity fleet. Good point about Meridians not needing full power to meet timings. It looks like a 800 variant with 6580hp by using 7 rather than 5 engines would meet Meridian timings. Maybe 6 engines with a battery for extra acceleration?

 

[Roast Veg]

Where could you possibly fit a battery in amongst all that? By the time you've got 7 engines and 2 transformers that's your space gone.

What would happen at Long Eaton with fixed formation 9 car units? Long walks? You'd only get 3 of your carriages in if they're 26m each wouldn't you?

 

[ainsworth74]

Why would we fitting batteries anyway? If we have to go down this bi-mode avenue (which we shouldn't on the MML but that's for another thread) then stick some socking great diesel engines under the floor and use them to generate whacking greats amount of electricity you can dump straight into the motors. I don't see what on earth adding batteries does to the equation other than add weight and require even more power to get the thing going quickly!

 

[Dave1987]

Why would we fitting batteries anyway? If we have to go down this bi-mode avenue (which we shouldn't on the MML but that's for another thread) then stick some socking great diesel engines under the floor and use them to generate whacking greats amount of electricity you can dump straight into the motors. I don't see what on earth adding batteries does to the equation other than add weight and require even more power to get the thing going quickly!

Law of diminishing returns. More engines equals more weight to accelerate, more fuel to carry etc etc. I wonder if the DFT are now realising the bi-mode isn’t the solution they had hoped for and now regret cancelling the electrification projects. The bi-mode is like a jack of all trades but the master of none. An extremely heavy EMU or a very lacklustre DMU. What a shameful situation this country has got itself into.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Law of diminishing returns. More engines equals more weight to accelerate, more fuel to carry etc etc. I wonder if the DFT are now realising the bi-mode isn’t the solution they had hoped for and now regret cancelling the electrification projects. The bi-mode is like a jack of all trades but the master of none. An extremely heavy EMU or a very lacklustre DMU. What a shameful situation this country has got itself into.

I think bi-modes have their uses, but the mainlines should not be them - they should be electrified. What bi-modes are good for is the kind of service where traditionally it'd be electric-hauled to a junction then a diesel would be added on - things like the Manchester Airport-Barrow service, which could run at 110mph under the wires as far as Carnforth, but then 60mph on diesel or battery would be fine to Barrow itself. Ironically, the Barrow-Windermere circuit, which I would argue is the route in the UK that is most suited to bi-modes I can think of, isn't getting bi-modes, but instead mucky DMUs will continue under the wires.

 

[Chester1]

Where could you possibly fit a battery in amongst all that? By the time you've got 7 engines and 2 transformers that's your space gone.

What would happen at Long Eaton with fixed formation 9 car units? Long walks? You'd only get 3 of your carriages in if they're 26m each wouldn't you?

NR would have 3 years to extend the platforms or remove the stop. 234m is a reasonable standard length for long distance London services on a mainline. The 800/802 5 coach units are for services where demand diminishes at one end e.g. west of Exeter. Nottingham and Sheffield both justify 2tph of 9 coaches to London.

Why would we fitting batteries anyway? If we have to go down this bi-mode avenue (which we shouldn't on the MML but that's for another thread) then stick some socking great diesel engines under the floor and use them to generate whacking greats amount of electricity you can dump straight into the motors. I don't see what on earth adding batteries does to the equation other than add weight and require even more power to get the thing going quickly!

A battery would provide additional power for a limited part of each service. I guess depending on weight it might not be worth it. Depending size could one not fitted above the floor?

Law of diminishing returns. More engines equals more weight to accelerate, more fuel to carry etc etc. I wonder if the DFT are now realising the bi-mode isn’t the solution they had hoped for and now regret cancelling the electrification projects. The bi-mode is like a jack of all trades but the master of none. An extremely heavy EMU or a very lacklustre DMU. What a shameful situation this country has got itself into.

I definitely agree the situation is idiotic and they should not have cancelled electrification but the government is not going to change its mind for a while yet. My point about a 7 engined, 9 coach 800 variant was that contary to posts in this thread it is possible to meet the specifications for the franchise. The DfT would not have awarded the franchise if none of the manufacturers had been able to design a compliant train. It is unlikely to be value for money but that is a whole different debate.

 

[jfowkes]

...The DfT would not have awarded the franchise if none of the manufacturers had been able to design a compliant train...

I think you might need to show you working for how you got to that conclusion!

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

As regards the regional reported to be refurbished modern trains, there's always the 170's from West Midlands Railway - unless this has been discussed on this thread?

In general, I'm surprised 170's can't work with 175's - same top speed and only 28 horsepower difference per coach between the 2 sets.

 

[ainsworth74]

In general, I'm surprised 170's can't work with 175's - same top speed and only 28 horsepower difference per coach between the 2 sets.

Different manufacturers therefore different underlying design and different TMS software along with different coupler designs.

 

[edwin_m]

What would happen at Long Eaton with fixed formation 9 car units? Long walks? You'd only get 3 of your carriages in if they're 26m each wouldn't you?

I don't travel through Long Eaton but with two five-car Meridians at Beeston (using SDO) those in the last four coaches have to walk forward. I'm pretty sure similar formations call at Long Eaton - does that mean the people in the rear unit can't get out at all?

In general, I'm surprised 170's can't work with 175's - same top speed and only 28 horsepower difference per coach between the 2 sets.

Different manufacturer so incompatible couplers and multiple working systems.

 

[Chester1]

I think you might need to show you working for how you got to that conclusion!

By pointing out its clearly possible for Hitachi or Bombardier to build a bi mode with a similar power to weight ratio of a Meridian by putting 940hp MTU engines under all but the end coaches of 9 coach set. Both companies have consistently stated a wish to win the order, despite the difficult specs.

Its funny to see people suggest lots of short units after years of complaints about the Meridians, inadequate capacity and wasted paths. There is no chance of more than 6tph of EMR services from St Pancras. That would suggest that the new units need to have as many seats as possible to be able to cope until HS2 completion in 2033 (or later). The only future capacity increase for a future franchise holder would be replacing Corby treble 80m EMU sets with purpose built single 240m units comparable with Thameslink (but with more comfortable seats).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Someone a couple of pages back suggested a Bi-mode version of the 395 for MML services. The problem there being 20m cars which probably can't fit an emissions-compliant diesel engine with enough grunt for 125mph between the bogies and under the floor. Realistically you'd have to go with fewer, larger engines above the solebar... and then you're eating into your useable passenger space. So if there's no reason to limit yourself to 20m carriages (as there is on the SouthEastern), why would you?

 

[DanDaDriver]

What would happen at Long Eaton with fixed formation 9 car units? Long walks? You'd only get 3 of your carriages in if they're 26m each wouldn't you?

I don't travel through Long Eaton but with two five-car Meridians at Beeston (using SDO) those in the last four coaches have to walk forward. I'm pretty sure similar formations call at Long Eaton - does that mean the people in the rear unit can't get out at all?

Long Eaton is SDO4 so smaller than Beeston.

Presumably passengers will do the same thing they have to do at Dronfield, Belper, Chesterfield, Wellingborough, Kettering and all the other places we stupidly stop trains longer than the platform

 

[anamyd]

Different manufacturers therefore different underlying design and different TMS software along with different coupler designs.

I believe 170s don't have a "TMS" as such; part of them being able to work in multiple with the Sprinter family along with the BSI couplers and the 7 notches on the power controller

 

[anamyd]

In general, I'm surprised 170's can't work with 175's - same top speed and only 28 horsepower difference per coach between the 2 sets.

170s are AdTranz Turbostars (1998-2001) and Bombardier Turbostars (2001-2005), whereas 175s are Alstom Coradias. 170s have BSI couplers, 7 notch power controllers and no TMS, whereas 175s have Scharfenberg couplers, 4 notch power controllers and a Train Management System. Computer says noooooo...

 

[hwl]

NR would have 3 years to extend the platforms or remove the stop. 234m is a reasonable standard length for long distance London services on a mainline. The 800/802 5 coach units are for services where demand diminishes at one end e.g. west of Exeter. Nottingham and Sheffield both justify 2tph of 9 coaches to London.
A battery would provide additional power for a limited part of each service. I guess depending on weight it might not be worth it. Depending size could one not fitted above the floor?
I definitely agree the situation is idiotic and they should not have cancelled electrification but the government is not going to change its mind for a while yet. My point about a 7 engined, 9 coach 800 variant was that contrary to posts in this thread it is possible to meet the specifications for the franchise. The DfT would not have awarded the franchise if none of the manufacturers had been able to design a compliant train. It is unlikely to be value for money but that is a whole different debate.

Agree that Hitachi could supply unit however that would require substantial redesign which is one reason why it wasn't done for GWR 9 car.
If EMR want to operate half length sets then the only choice is Bombardier.
Hitachi have a slight of disadvantage in that due to the sloping floors under the cars with engines under them, they can't have wheelchair accommodation which then limits the wheelchair space positioning to the end cars which could cause issues with short platforms as only one of the first or standard wheel chairs spaces could be platformed. Hence if they go for full length Hitachi units with 7 engines then platform lengthening will be needed.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Long Eaton is SDO4 so smaller than Beeston.

Presumably passengers will do the same thing they have to do at Dronfield, Belper, Chesterfield, Wellingborough, Kettering and all the other places we stupidly stop trains longer than the platform

Kettering & Wellingborough will presumably get 240m platforms to accommodate 12-car Corby services. Market Harborough is being done as we speak, but the latest EDP suggested that platform lengthening North of Leicester was cancelled... (See linked post)

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/mml-electrification.110445/page-81#post-3817811

 

[mt4958]

Yes, 240m platforms for London to Corby - https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...e-improvement-programme/mml-longer-platforms/

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe 170s don't have a "TMS" as such; part of them being able to work in multiple with the Sprinter family along with the BSI couplers and the 7 notches on the power controller

Yeah, they're basically the offspring of a Thames Turbo and a Class 158 - very much a "second generation" unit in terms of design, even though they are a "third generation" unit in terms of when they made an appearance.

 

[hwl]

Yeah, they're basically the offspring of a Thames Turbo and a Class 158 - very much a "second generation" unit in terms of design, even though they are a "third generation" unit in terms of when they made an appearance.

They may look like an electrostar in certain ways but they don't have the level of TMS to match.
The SN 171s seem to have better functionality than the 170s (as seen by the ex Sctorail unit conversion fun) so Turbostars may well have evolved a bit.

 

[Dave1987]

NR would have 3 years to extend the platforms or remove the stop. 234m is a reasonable standard length for long distance London services on a mainline. The 800/802 5 coach units are for services where demand diminishes at one end e.g. west of Exeter. Nottingham and Sheffield both justify 2tph of 9 coaches to London.



A battery would provide additional power for a limited part of each service. I guess depending on weight it might not be worth it. Depending size could one not fitted above the floor?



I definitely agree the situation is idiotic and they should not have cancelled electrification but the government is not going to change its mind for a while yet. My point about a 7 engined, 9 coach 800 variant was that contary to posts in this thread it is possible to meet the specifications for the franchise. The DfT would not have awarded the franchise if none of the manufacturers had been able to design a compliant train. It is unlikely to be value for money but that is a whole different debate.

I would be surprised if they did not change their mind now. They are facing the prospect of requiring manufacturers to engineer the impossible. Adding batteries for low down acceleration is nonsensical. Just like with a supercharger on an internal combustion engine that takes horse power from the flywheel to run it so the return in power is less. If you add batteries you need power to accelerate the weight of the batteries before you even consider the train itself. The only sensible solution is one that is already available, 25kv overheads. The sooner someone bashes the heads of the DFT to bring them to their senses the better!

 

[hwl]

Adding batteries for low down acceleration is nonsensical.
Just like with a supercharger on an internal combustion engine that takes horse power from the flywheel to run it so the return in power is less.

Low speed acceleration is governed by Tractive Effort so more powered axles rather than more power is what is need (or higher axle loadings too).
If you don't have the power so low speed acceleration is power limited then you really aren't in the acceleration game (excluding Diesel Hydraulic transmissions which are just bad for acceleration hence the MTU battery boost which also allows the engine to be turned off near stations to improve local air quality.

Superchargers can and do work if you get the thermodynics right especially for clean petrol engines

 

[grumpyoldman01]

170s are AdTranz Turbostars (1998-2001) and Bombardier Turbostars (2001-2005), whereas 175s are Alstom Coradias. 170s have BSI couplers, 7 notch power controllers and no TMS, whereas 175s have Scharfenberg couplers, 4 notch power controllers and a Train Management System. Computer says noooooo...

And they were specifically designed to work in multiple with the ex BR regional fleet, and to be able to capitalize upon SP enhanced speeds

 

[anamyd]

And they were specifically designed to work in multiple with the ex BR regional fleet, and to be able to capitalize upon SP enhanced speeds

yep

 

[Verulamius]

The business case which enabled DfT to make the decision to cancel the electrification North of Kettering was based on the assumption that a new bi-mode would be able to match class 222 timings. Hence the comment at the time that electrification would only result in a 1 minute reduction in timings on London to Sheffield. The business case also noted that at that time no such train existed.

 

[Chester1]

I would be surprised if they did not change their mind now. They are facing the prospect of requiring manufacturers to engineer the impossible. Adding batteries for low down acceleration is nonsensical. Just like with a supercharger on an internal combustion engine that takes horse power from the flywheel to run it so the return in power is less. If you add batteries you need power to accelerate the weight of the batteries before you even consider the train itself. The only sensible solution is one that is already available, 25kv overheads. The sooner someone bashes the heads of the DFT to bring them to their senses the better!

I agree the whole plan is a bad idea but a reversal at this stage is wishful thinking. At least one manufacturer has designed a train that both the DfT and Abellio are happy with. A 9 coach, 7 x 940hp engined, 800 variant would be able to keep Meridian timings but with less padding. Thats the sort of fudge that the government does a lot.

The business case which enabled DfT to make the decision to cancel the electrification North of Kettering was based on the assumption that a new bi-mode would be able to match class 222 timings. Hence the comment at the time that electrification would only result in a 1 minute reduction in timings on London to Sheffield. The business case also noted that at that time no such train existed.

Lets face it, it was just about limiting the scale of electrification because of absurd cost over runs on multiple projects. If they change their mind it will be sold as a different project. Maybe Doncaster-Sheffield-Chesterfield scheme to prepare for HS2 and then a decision later on to wire Market Harborough-Chesterfield.