Project Thor / eVoyager

[Goatboy]

XC have disabled the tilt capability anyway.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But Voyagers have Alstom's Onix traction package (also on 390s and their other EMUs) which is different to the 222s.
I think it is more than just a software incompatibility, but the usual sources are not very helpful in explaining what!
"The electrical connections are different" it says somewhere.

 

[MCR247]

I was aware of this and was saying that they could be used as separate fleets, shouldn't be too hard really, if slightly less efficient

 

[jonhewes]

I was at a talk with a TOC MD who is familiar with Project Thor. It was confirmed this is a dead idea. It proved cheaper to buy a new all electric 125mph train than add a pantograph. Looks like Derby shot themselves in the foot over cost and lack of flexibility. Bring on the Hitachi factory in Country Durham and some proper trains to be constructed!

This is one of the key problems with buying multiple unit trains in this country ; it proves to be highly difficult and costly to lengthen existing trains to cater for growth on the route they serve, due to the bespoke nature of each type of train. In some instances irrespective of cost, it isn't even possible to build additional coaches for a unit, due to new regulations or the facilities to manufacture them no longer existing.

In the bad old days of Locos and coaches, it was possible to mix different types of coaches. With the exception of HST trailers, it was possible to form a train of mixed coach types as they were mechanically and electrically interoperable.

In contrast, it would not be possible to lengthen a Voyager set with a centre coach from a 180, or lengthen a 185 with a centre coach from a 170

While the introduction of any further loco hauled passenger trains is highly unlikely, something needs to be done to ensure that provisions are made so that multiple unit train sets can be lengthened to cater for demand.

Franchising and procurement policies need to be revised to take this into account. Perhaps when ordering a train from a manufacturer, some sort of framework needs to be established where additional coaches can be procured and manufactured throughout the life of the unit, should traffic patterns require this.

The fact that we have two Voyager driving coaches out of use, through surrendering their centre coaches in order to lengthen their class mates, is an indictment of what is wrong with current rolling stock procurement policy.

 

[The Ham]

This is one of the key problems with buying multiple unit trains in this country ; it proves to be highly difficult and costly to lengthen existing trains to cater for growth on the route they serve, due to the bespoke nature of each type of train. In some instances irrespective of cost, it isn't even possible to build additional coaches for a unit, due to new regulations or the facilities to manufacture them no longer existing.

In the bad old days of Locos and coaches, it was possible to mix different types of coaches. With the exception of HST trailers, it was possible to form a train of mixed coach types as they were mechanically and electrically interoperable.

In contrast, it would not be possible to lengthen a Voyager set with a centre coach from a 180, or lengthen a 185 with a centre coach from a 170

While the introduction of any further loco hauled passenger trains is highly unlikely, something needs to be done to ensure that provisions are made so that multiple unit train sets can be lengthened to cater for demand.

Franchising and procurement policies need to be revised to take this into account. Perhaps when ordering a train from a manufacturer, some sort of framework needs to be established where additional coaches can be procured and manufactured throughout the life of the unit, should traffic patterns require this.

The fact that we have two Voyager driving coaches out of use, through surrendering their centre coaches in order to lengthen their class mates, is an indictment of what is wrong with current rolling stock procurement policy.

The main problem with the Voyagers is that they were all short form trains (4 or 5 coaches) which makes it hard to do anything else with them, as three coach trains are not really viable. At least with the Meridians there is the option to shorten a few of the longer trains to provide a mid length train and run the short trains doubled up to provide the capacity.

Using the example of the IEP which is due to be the next train ordered there is the option (whether it ever happens is another matter) for a few 9 coach trains to sacrifice a few coaches to lengthen some of the 5 coach trains to run a few 7 coach trains if there were significant routes that needed more than 5 coaches but not as many as 9 coaches.

The secondary problem was that up until now there has been no electrification infill projects to enable IC EMU's to take over from the Voyagers. Hopefully, this should not be the case going forward and in the next 20 years all the IC lines will be electrified doing away with the need for IC DMU's.

 

[Zoe]

At least with the Meridians there is the option to shorten a few of the longer trains to provide a mid length train and run the short trains doubled up to provide the capacity.

This situation though wasn't intentional as Midland Main Line ended up over ordering as the SRA decided to not allow them to run an improved service to Leeds which would have used the 9 car sets. Had they known that they wouldn't have been allowed to run this service before they placed the order then they may well have been stuck with the 4 car sets like XC.

 

[jonhewes]

None of the points raised in the posts above address the key issue I've been trying to get across though ; If there is a requirement to lengthen a fleet of existing DMUs or EMUs to cater for growth in demand, it can prove expensive, difficult, and in some cases impossible to do so due to the bespoke nature of each train type.

For example, we've missed the window to lengthen the Class 185s because they don't meet newly introduced emissions standards for new vehicles.

While it is possible to double up units, freed by new rolling stock for example, this isn't ideal as "dead space" is consumed by cabs and crumple zones, not to mention that the additional capacity required may not warrant doubling the size of the train. We also have the issue of unit without corridor connections at either end, regarding two guards per train.

Voyagers and 180s aren't bad trains, they should have been built as longer trains from manufacture.

 

[Zoe]

Voyagers and 180s aren't bad trains, they should have been built as longer trains from manufacture.

At the time the orders were committed I doubt anyone expected just how popular rail travel would be today. You wouldn't want to end up having to pay the running costs for vehicles that there isn't any demand for. The policy of running shorter but more frequent trains was not new and had been quite successful with Regional Railways.

 

[David Goddard]

For example, we've missed the window to lengthen the Class 185s because they don't meet newly introduced emissions standards for new vehicles.

Is it permissable to build trailers for the 185s? I know its years since a British DMU had an unpowered vehicle in the formation but just a thought.
The increased weight might mean slower accelleration and a loss in top speed of say 10mph but 90 instead of 100 wouldnt be too big a deal if they were used on the right routes.

As for Voyager capacity, I would like to see the fleet supplemented by some more HSTs once freed up from FGW when IEP comes in.
XC have shown they are suited (passengers in the know even make their plans around which set is an HST), and they would provide an instant increase in capacity once available.
With HSTs on all of the longest services (those serving North of Edinburgh and South of Plymouth), and electrics taking over the Reading/Bournemouth trains, would enable 8 or 10 car Voyagers to fulfil the rest.

 

[jonhewes]

At the time the orders were committed I doubt anyone expected just how popular rail travel would be today. You wouldn't want to end up having to pay the running costs for vehicles that there isn't any demand for. The policy of running shorter but more frequent trains was not new and had been quite successful with Regional Railways.

True, but how do we address the issue of it being difficult to lengthen the various bespoke DMU and EMU fleets? This is a somewhat prevalent problem, and is likely to become more prolific as ridership increases across the railway.

 

[Zoe]

True, but how do we address the issue of it being difficult to lengthen the various bespoke DMU and EMU fleets?

390s were lengthened some years after the original order.

 

[jopsuk]

Not just lengthened; brand new units built as well. Which rather demonstrated why "but the jigs have been dismantled" is a ridiculous thing to bring up

 

[Zoe]

Not just lengthened; brand new units built as well. Which rather demonstrated why "but the jigs have been dismantled" is a ridiculous thing to bring up

Indeed and it even gets suggested from time to time that there should have been a new order of 390s instead of the IEP.

 

[jonhewes]

390s were lengthened some years after the original order.

Yes, I am more than aware that Pendolinos have been extended, and that entire new units have been manufactured a substantial amount of time after the original trainsets were introduced

However, in many instances it has been technically impractical or financially prohibitive to build additional vehicles for addition to multiple unit train sets - look at the Voyagers and class 185s for instance. What do we do to address this issue and prevent it from reoccurring in the future?


Can you answer my original question, rather than quoting random facts?

 

[Zoe]

Can you answer my original question, rather than quoting random facts?

It's not a random fact, the answer is that it has been shown with the 390s that you can build new EMUs years after the original order so this isn't a significant issue. With DMUs it may not be so easy due to the emissions regulations introduced since the original order but I doubt there will ever be another large scale order of DMUs considering the current policy of electrification and reducing CO2 emissions.

 

[rebmcr]

Is it permissible to build trailers for the 185s? I know its years since a British DMU had an unpowered vehicle in the formation but just a thought.
The increased weight might mean slower acceleration and a loss in top speed of say 10mph but 90 instead of 100 wouldn't be too big a deal if they were used on the right routes.

Existing 185s have an enormous amount of power (which makes them heavy with a high RA), and run with one of the engines turned off when it isn't needed — i.e. anytime it's not accelerating up a hill. If they can manage running with a virtual trailer whilst carting its engine around, I would imagine an actual trailer would be perfectly manageable too.

Indeed and it even gets suggested from time to time that there should have been a new order of 390s instead of the IEP.

No point spending extra on unnecessary tilt, but Alstom did offer what is essentially a 390, but in the body of a 180.

 

[tbtc]

Is it permissable to build trailers for the 185s? I know its years since a British DMU had an unpowered vehicle in the formation but just a thought

For all the talk of "Project Thor", nobody has suggested panto-coaches for 185s. Would that be similarly impossible?

True, but how do we address the issue of it being difficult to lengthen the various bespoke DMU and EMU fleets? This is a somewhat prevalent problem, and is likely to become more prolific as ridership increases across the railway

It's less of a problem with EMUs - e.g. British Rail slotted 508 coaches into another class (455? excuse my ignorance!), there's a current plan to merge 460s into 458s because of the mechanics involved.

With DMUs it'll be less of a problem in future given the lower numbers that will be ordered, but the ideal situation would be to go back to Sprinter procurement when each class had to work with every other class, so you could attach a 153 to a 158 without any problem.

Ideally we'd have got away from building tiny class sizes like the 175s and 180s because that just creates problems down the line (and insisted that anything with a top speed of 75/ 90/ 100mph had corridor connections).

 

[WillPS]

an electro-diesel 185 is an impossibility

185 is a DMU - the diesel engines directly create the traction

220/1s are DEMUs - the diesel engines act as generators, which provide electricity for electrical motors - if a panto coach were added, this would provide the electricity for these motors when under the wires.

It would not be beyond the wit of man to extend the Voyagers and make them bi-mode.

It would not be beyond the wit of man to make Voyagers and Meridians/Pioneers compatible.

Will either ever happen? Perhaps. I suspect we'll find out in the next few years.

 

[Simon11]

I doubt it, with lots of electrifaction work in the future I can't see many new dmu stock purchased as they won't be able to guarantee work for 3Oyears.

 

[jopsuk]

The old 1st gen DMUs, as long as they at least similar in transmission (mechanical or hydraulic) were able to be formed up into mix and match formations. similarly the Sprinter classes, despite being from different manufacturers and with different top speeds, have had some odd formations (let alone working in multiple)- 156/158 hybrids, 153/150 hybrids etc.

As WillPS says, only 2xx DEMUs can be considered for bi-mode conversion- to do so with with a 1xx DMU (mechanical or hydraulic) would require expensive and difficult replacement of the drive train. Almost certainly technically possible to do. Not viable though.

 

[rebmcr]

The old 1st gen DMUs, as long as they at least similar in transmission (mechanical or hydraulic) were able to be formed up into mix and match formations. similarly the Sprinter classes, despite being from different manufacturers and with different top speeds, have had some odd formations (let alone working in multiple)- 156/158 hybrids, 153/150 hybrids etc.

Sprinters can even work in multiple with Pacers.

 

[DDB]

So it seems all the information is that project Thor is dead although I'm nut sure we've bottomed out exactly why. It seems to be cost related but I find it hard to believe its more expensive that buying new trains.

Clearly the eventual answer will be new trains as the rest of the core cross country network is wired up over the next two control periods.

However it still seems to me that project Thor could have provided desperately needed capacity quickly (i.e within 1-2 years) and allowed the use of the existing wiring even if some of the diesels had to be kept on to help if we a single panto coach couldn't power a whole train.

DDB

 

[The Ham]

True, but how do we address the issue of it being difficult to lengthen the various bespoke DMU and EMU fleets? This is a somewhat prevalent problem, and is likely to become more prolific as ridership increases across the railway.

I think you are asking the wrong question, there is nothing wrong with having fleets of trains that we can not lengthen per say. The problem is having small fleets of trains that can not be lengthened because there is too much demand for them where they are and no easy and/or cheap way to replace them.

If there was a rolling program of electrification (which there maybe now for at least a while), which focused on getting rid of DMU's from the higher speed routes first and with largish batched of EMU's being built over time, then there wouldn't be so much of a problem. Does it matter that EMU A can't work with EMU B if there are enough of both that no franchises have to have only a few of each?

For all the complaints about IEP it is an order of 596 coaches with a follow on option for a further 270 coaches over two franchises. Compare this with a total of 400 class 22x coaches over three franchises and a number of those not being able to be run together because of technical differences and a fairly low number of seats per coach. Large orders of each type of train should be the way forward.

 

[Erniescooper]

The DFT still have the option to order Baby Pendolino to release the WC Voyager fleet in 2016 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmtran/writev/railfran/m09.htm, but they are insistent that they will not order any trains for the two year period of the temporary franchise even though though they know it could cost 500 uk jobs and add £20-£30 million pound to cost of Baby Pendolino once the current derogation runs out .

 

[David]

For all the talk of "Project Thor", nobody has suggested panto-coaches for 185s. Would that be similarly impossible?

Yeah, I asked this question over on WNXX several years ago now, and the reply I recieved was "it's cheaper and quicker to buy new units". Basically, you have to completely gut each carriage, so you only have the shell left and start again.

 

[Yew]

Existing 185s have an enormous amount of power (which makes them heavy with a high RA), and run with one of the engines turned off when it isn't needed — i.e. anytime it's not accelerating up a hill. If they can manage running with a virtual trailer whilst carting its engine around, I would imagine an actual trailer would be perfectly manageable too.

I imagine if there was the political will for it, trailer carriages could also be fit to voyagers, whilst still maintaining HST or faster acceleration.

 

[tbtc]

As I've said on another thread, the hourly Manchester - Bournemouth service requires around a dozen Voyagers, to give an idea of what CP5 electrification could "save".

You'd "save" a lot more if you chopped the XC service pattern into an EMU run Manchester - Bournemouth corridor and a "diesel" Newcastle - Bristol corridor (with extensions to Aberdeen, Penzance etc), but that'd mean the politically tricky decision to chop some current through services.

Yeah, I asked this question over on WNXX several years ago now, and the reply I recieved was "it's cheaper and quicker to buy new units". Basically, you have to completely gut each carriage, so you only have the shell left and start again.

an electro-diesel 185 is an impossibility

185 is a DMU - the diesel engines directly create the traction

220/1s are DEMUs - the diesel engines act as generators, which provide electricity for electrical motors - if a panto coach were added, this would provide the electricity for these motors when under the wires.

It would not be beyond the wit of man to extend the Voyagers and make them bi-mode.

It would not be beyond the wit of man to make Voyagers and Meridians/Pioneers compatible.

Will either ever happen? Perhaps. I suspect we'll find out in the next few years.

Thanks both

Just a shame its not possible as (once they are no longer required on the hilly route through Huddersfield when it is electrified) the 185s are surely powerful enough to run a four coach service with only three engines (so could "carry" an unpowered pantograph coach away from the wires).

 

[Pumbaa]

So it seems all the information is that project Thor is dead although I'm nut sure we've bottomed out exactly why. It seems to be cost related but I find it hard to believe its more expensive that buying new trains.

However it still seems to me that project Thor could have provided desperately needed capacity quickly (i.e within 1-2 years) and allowed the use of the existing wiring even if some of the diesels had to be kept on to help if we a single panto coach couldn't power a whole train.

DDB

It essentially boiled down to being much harder and expensive than originally thought. The loads of a 5 car alone meant you'd need 2 panto-transformer cars to handle, and then the economics didn't work unless you took it up to ~ 8 cars. That killed 221/222 conversion if it hadn't already been killed. Then Derby put in a higher price than envisaged, and said they'd be sending the work abroad.

Net result, they decided it was better to quietly drop the whole thing. The increase in expense on what was originally conceived was a factor of 4. Was not going to happen.

 

[The Ham]

Net result, they decided it was better to quietly drop the whole thing. The increase in expense on what was originally conceived was a factor of 4. Was not going to happen.

Which is probably why the electric spine project has been pushed forward so there was a way to run EMU's over part of the XC network to get around the problem of not being able to lengthen the existing class 22x's to meet the overcrowding problem.