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.
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.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.
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.Voyagers and 180s aren't bad trains, they should have been built as longer trains from manufacture.
For example, we've missed the window to lengthen the Class 185s because they don't meet newly introduced emissions standards for new vehicles.
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.
390s were lengthened some years after the original order.True, but how do we address the issue of it being difficult to lengthen the various bespoke DMU and EMU fleets?
Indeed and it even gets suggested from time to time that there should have been a new order of 390s instead of the IEP.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
390s were lengthened some years after the original order.
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.Can you answer my original question, rather than quoting random facts?
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.
Indeed and it even gets suggested from time to time that there should have been a new order of 390s instead of the IEP.
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
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
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.
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.
For all the talk of "Project Thor", nobody has suggested panto-coaches for 185s. Would that be similarly impossible?
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.
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.
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
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.