Plans for a standardised design of hybrid multiple units?

[eldomtom2]

I found this post by Mike_Walker on a RMWeb thread about battery-powered trains. Is it true? Does anyone know anything more?

It is hoped [230001] will be in passenger service later this year but it will remain a one-off. Despite GWR (on behalf of the DfT) having famously acquired a large number of redundant D stock cars in what Mark Hopwood described to me as the "mother of all bog-off deals" there are no plans to rebuild any of those into 230s although the three ex-Marston Vale units (which GWR also now 'own') may be converted from diesel-electric to battery electric operation. The design, mounting either the engine/alternators or battery modules on compatible underfloor rafts, makes this comparatively straight forward.

What will emerge going forward is the use of this rapid charge battery technology in the next generation of multiple units currently being designed. Led initially by GWR to replace their BR-era DMUs and now also being adopted by other TOCs facing the same issue, these will be a highly standardised design on a common platform accommodating a choice of multi-modal propulsion systems - diesel/battery, electric/battery - capable of easy updating at a later date. For example, diesel engines can be removed and replaced by electric traction packages as electrification, continuous or infill, spreads. The driving cabs will be universal reducing the amount of training required and competency issues. For passengers, there will be alternative body styles employing both double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 of the bodyside or single doors at the body ends depending on what they are intended to be used for. As I understand it, the initial design work has been completed and the DfT have finally accepted that it makes more sense to build new, purpose designed trains with a potential life of 40+ years than to continue trying (unsuccessfully) to rebuild old units which have at best a 10-20 year life left after rebuild. All that stands in the way at the moment is the approval of HM Treasury and as we are constantly being told, the country is broke.

Something has to be done as the remaining ex-BR DMUs have between 5 and 10 years life left in them in their present form. Recent serious rebuilds of badly corroded Class 150s have actually cost more than building replacements but to the Treasury, rebuilds come under 'maintenance' which is necessary whilst new builds would be a capital expenditure. As is often said, there are those that know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

 

[supervc-10]

That sounds sensible and logical... and with my cynical hat on, that means it won't happen!

There's quite a bit of old BR stock still knocking around with no sign of replacement - within GWR, there's the 150s, 158s, and 165/166s, SWR have the 158/159s, and Northern have a hodge-podge of 150s, 156s, 158s. The oldest 170s will be pretty elderly by the time this is done, too, they're already over 25 years old.

My only worry is that it will mean that getting electrification on some lines harder. I can totally see them putting some fast-charge rails in Marylebone, have them go as far as Wembley on electricity, and then chug diesel all the way to Birmingham (although a hybrid battery/diesel unit will still probably be better than a 168!)

I take it this suggestion is a merger of 'Project Churchward' and Northern's project to replace the sprinters?

 

[vuzzeho]

I thought Siemens proposed something like this with their new Desiro Verve platform. I expect this will be the next big train fleet for the UK - Desiros could be used nicely on metro services (replacing Networkers) and a hybrid/bi-mode/tri-mode/whatever could be used for the regional/interregional services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't this basically the Northern framework order?

 

[AM9]

I thought Siemens proposed something like this with their new Desiro Verve platform. I expect this will be the next big train fleet for the UK - Desiros could be used nicely on metro services (replacing Networkers) and a hybrid/bi-mode/tri-mode/whatever could be used for the regional/interregional services.

If by "Desiros" you mean classes 350/360 & 450, then they are totally unsuitable for metro services owing to their slow door opening/closing sequence. The just about deliver on intermediate services but the sluggish doors and interlock would increase dwells by at least 1 minute, - so running them with short headways would quickly become untenable.

 

[zwk500]

Isn't the modular power supply model becoming fairly standard from most manufacturers now? There's different implementation between manufacturers but it's not a brand-new revolutionary concept. Stadler FLIRTs and Hitachi 80X family have delivered modular options to the UK, and other families in use in the UK have modular options that are being taken up internationally.

Is the quote in the OP basically just asking the DfT to commit to one design as a major fleet replacement of the remaining BR Fleet?

 

[vuzzeho]

If by "Desiros" you mean classes 350/360 & 450, then they are totally unsuitable for metro services owing to their slow door opening/closing sequence. The just about deliver on intermediate services but the sluggish doors and interlock would increase dwells by at least 1 minute, - so running them with short headways would quickly become untenable.

I mean the Desiro Verve, as mentioned in my post. Which presumably would be built off the Desiro City.

 

[Zomboid]

Aren't 700s and all those things types of Desiro? The 350/450 family is 20 years old now and probably won't be the basis for anything new. And even if they were I'm sure it's not beyond the capability of a company like Siemens to fit faster doors.

I don't think a single solution to sprinter replacement is necessarily a great idea, you don't want 300 fleets of 10 units, but spreading the work and risk across 3 or 4 manufacturers would get the job done quicker and not be subject to such a risk of common mode failures affecting huge swathes of the country at once.