Proposed Class 223?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,774
Well, unlike many people on this forum I believe that the basic bodyshell design used on the Class 22x multiple units to be sound, and merely hamstrung by the poor interior design (with lots and lots of disabled toilets).

Unfortunately, despite recent plans to reopen the Voyager bodyshell production line, there can be no motor vehicles manufactured as the QSK-19 does not meet the new emissions requirements for new vehicle construction.
However, I have an alternative proposal.

Take the current Voyager/Meridian design, strip out its engine, generator and traction motors and replace them with an MTU 6H1800 R83 type engine, the same as the Class 172, and main generators and traction motors suitable for this new power output.

As the dry weight of a QSK-19 is in the vicinity of 1900kg compared to ~1100kg in the case of the R83, the vehicle should be lighter, possibly on order of 1.5t once the lighter traction motors and generators, and a downrated traction control pack, is taken into account.
Suspension and all above-sole bar parts would be exchangeable with the existing Voyager family, including eVoyager components.
As a 4-car Cl220 set has a weight of approximately 185.6t empty, we would be looking at an average vehicle weight of approximately, after the weight savings, of roughly ~45t.
The pantograph trailer design would be identical to that of typical eVoyagers, leaving that heavier than the remainder of the coach by the aforementioned 1500kg or so. It would however be able to support more coaches. (If we assume a standard eVoyager pantograph car can support 4 motor cars with 3000hp total, it would be able to support 6 of these downrated motor coaches, leaving us with a 7 coach train).

The seven coach formation thus mentioned would have a power output of 2910hp on diesel, and a total weight of ~316.5t.
This gives us a power to weight ratio of roughly 9.2hp/t.

9.2hp/t is superior to a 2+9 HST such as those used by East Coast.
(4500hp with approximately 140t of power car and 9 41.8t Mark 3s giving a power to weight ratio of 8.7hp/t) and is roughly comparable to a 2+8 HST formation (with roughly 9.4hp/t).

This means such a train would have high speed performance similar to a HST, low speed acceleration superior to it due to having half of its axles driven, and would be an electrodiesel.

It would also fit into the existing loading gauge.
Anyone have any thoughts on the idea?

NOTE: Due to its lower axle weight even than the Cl220 (thanks to its motor vehicles being lighter due to the lighter traction equipment) it can be expected that it would have track access charges lower even than the Class 220, and would thus be cheaper to operate than a HST, even at very long lengths. And apparently cheaper in track access terms than a Class 185 and a Class 175, to say nothing of the Class 180
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
4,288
Location
Nottingham
Its an interetng concept, voyagers are overpowered and can be fuel hungry at longer lengths. this would address some of those flaws. Hoepfully the engines would be smaller, and could have an acoustic shroud to reduce saloon noise. However I wonder if it would actually have greater acceleration than a HST, with similar power, but a low weight on the driving axles (around 10t per axle) whereas a class 43 has a driving axle weight of 18t over 8 driving axles, that could give better railhead adhesion. (this is just me being pedantic and not liking IC DMU's, but that argument has been had many times before, and comes out about even)

I wonder if having a big engine (mtu or similar) in one of the driving cars, that then powers the underfloor electrics could work as well? would it reduce the need for 'cabinets' at each end of the coaches? maybe fuel could be stored under the coaches like in a normal DMU to reduce the axle weight of the motor cars?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,774
Its an interetng concept, voyagers are overpowered and can be fuel hungry at longer lengths. this would address some of those flaws. Hoepfully the engines would be smaller, and could have an acoustic shroud to reduce saloon noise. However I wonder if it would actually have greater acceleration than a HST, with similar power, but a low weight on the driving axles (around 10t per axle) whereas a class 43 has a driving axle weight of 18t over 8 driving axles, that could give better railhead adhesion. (this is just me being pedantic and not liking IC DMU's, but that argument has been had many times before, and comes out about even)
There may be only 11.25t on each driving axle, but a seven coach formation would have 12 driving axles, giving it a total weight of 135t on the driving axles, out of a total weight of 316.5t. (42.7%).

Meanwhile a 2+8 HST would have a weight of ~140t on the driven axles, but would weigh in at 474t (29.5%).

I wonder if having a big engine (mtu or similar) in one of the driving cars, that then powers the underfloor electrics could work as well? would it reduce the need for 'cabinets' at each end of the coaches? maybe fuel could be stored under the coaches like in a normal DMU to reduce the axle weight of the motor cars?
That would require an insanely complex redesign of the bodyshell to accommodate this with practically no advantages and several disadvantages.
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
Well, unlike many people on this forum I believe that the basic bodyshell design used on the Class 22x multiple units to be sound, and merely hamstrung by the poor interior design (with lots and lots of disabled toilets).

Unfortunately, despite recent plans to reopen the Voyager bodyshell production line, there can be no motor vehicles manufactured as the QSK-19 does not meet the new emissions requirements for new vehicle construction.
However, I have an alternative proposal.

Take the current Voyager/Meridian design, strip out its engine, generator and traction motors and replace them with an MTU 6H1800 R83 type engine, the same as the Class 172, and main generators and traction motors suitable for this new power output.

As the dry weight of a QSK-19 is in the vicinity of 1900kg compared to ~1100kg in the case of the R83, the vehicle should be lighter, possibly on order of 1.5t once the lighter traction motors and generators, and a downrated traction control pack, is taken into account.
Suspension and all above-sole bar parts would be exchangeable with the existing Voyager family, including eVoyager components.
As a 4-car Cl220 set has a weight of approximately 185.6t empty, we would be looking at an average vehicle weight of approximately, after the weight savings, of roughly ~45t.
The pantograph trailer design would be identical to that of typical eVoyagers, leaving that heavier than the remainder of the coach by the aforementioned 1500kg or so. It would however be able to support more coaches. (If we assume a standard eVoyager pantograph car can support 4 motor cars with 3000hp total, it would be able to support 6 of these downrated motor coaches, leaving us with a 7 coach train).

The seven coach formation thus mentioned would have a power output of 2910hp on diesel, and a total weight of ~316.5t.
This gives us a power to weight ratio of roughly 9.2hp/t.

9.2hp/t is superior to a 2+9 HST such as those used by East Coast.
(4500hp with approximately 140t of power car and 9 41.8t Mark 3s giving a power to weight ratio of 8.7hp/t) and is roughly comparable to a 2+8 HST formation (with roughly 9.4hp/t).

This means such a train would have high speed performance similar to a HST, low speed acceleration superior to it due to having half of its axles driven, and would be an electrodiesel.

It would also fit into the existing loading gauge.
Anyone have any thoughts on the idea?

NOTE: Due to its lower axle weight even than the Cl220 (thanks to its motor vehicles being lighter due to the lighter traction equipment) it can be expected that it would have track access charges lower even than the Class 220, and would thus be cheaper to operate than a HST, even at very long lengths. And apparently cheaper in track access terms than a Class 185 and a Class 175, to say nothing of the Class 180
This seems an extremely expensive bit of engineering to achieve almost nothing. If you want to add extra cars to the Voyagers just add trailers with or without pantographs/transformers and leave the rest of the train's traction equipment unchanged.

I may be out of date but don't HST trailers weigh about 34 tons and mk 4s weigh 41 tons.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,774
This seems an extremely expensive bit of engineering to achieve almost nothing. If you want to add extra cars to the Voyagers just add trailers with or without pantographs/transformers and leave the rest of the train's traction equipment unchanged.

I may be out of date but don't HST trailers weigh about 34 tons and mk 4s weigh 41 tons.
The only figures I can find for HST trailers put them at 41t and Mark 4s at roughly 40-44t depending on type.

And I am not talking about adding carriages to existing sets, this is me talking about entirely new trains.... since we are not allowed new QSK-19s.
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
I think you'll find that new QSK19s are being built that meet the requirements and could be used (I believe they are being used in the 73 rebuild that one FOC is looking at). The problem is that they are different to the 'old' QSK in the current 22x and 18x so were not suitable for use as extra vehicles in existing sets.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,774
I think you'll find that new QSK19s are being built that meet the requirements and could be used (I believe they are being used in the 73 rebuild that one FOC is looking at). The problem is that they are different to the 'old' QSK in the current 22x and 18x so were not suitable for use as extra vehicles in existing sets.
As far as I can tell from the Cummins website, the largest Stage IIIB/Tier 4 compatible engine that could hope to fit below the solebar in an DEMU is rated for ~600hp. (QSX-15)

Also as the engines are sufficient for superior-to-HST accelerations to speed, thanks to the faster start, and capable of sustaining 125mph additional power is probably unnecessary on most routes.
And there is the fact that this allows the engine to be standardised with the future Turbostar fleet.
 
Last edited:

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
6,022
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
There is one problem with this and something i've got a slight grudge against - Why continue to use the 22X Range bodyshell, designed for tilting, if there not going to tilt? (Another reason as to why i prefer the 180, as it's closer to a Mk3 in design and dosent have the 'tilt impact' which passes through to the interior) - just my pennys worth...
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
There is one problem with this and something i've got a slight grudge against - Why continue to use the 22X Range bodyshell, designed for tilting, if there not going to tilt? (Another reason as to why i prefer the 180, as it's closer to a Mk3 in design and dosent have the 'tilt impact' which passes through to the interior) - just my pennys worth...
Because it would give work to Derby because there is no way that Bombardier would use the Brugge plant which has experience in building the 22x :roll:
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,774
There is one problem with this and something i've got a slight grudge against - Why continue to use the 22X Range bodyshell, designed for tilting, if there not going to tilt? (Another reason as to why i prefer the 180, as it's closer to a Mk3 in design and dosent have the 'tilt impact' which passes through to the interior) - just my pennys worth...
As the Mark 4 shows, tilt profiling for six degrees has little to no impact on the passenger environment, people just tend to assign it blame for the reduced space in the saloon which is more a result of having disabled toilets everywhere.
Meanwhile, as the above-solebar electrics and parts would be shared with either the Cl220 or 222, we have a far greater pool of spares available because you are expanding an already large class, while basing it on the Cl180 bodyshell (heavily modified as it will almost certainly be unable to accept diesel electric drivetrain components) will be turning a micro class into a small class.

Standardisation is the key.

Because it would give work to Derby because there is no way that Bombardier would use the Brugge plant which has experience in building the 22x
Because there is any chance at all that anyone else would do anything more than assemble trains here (see Hitachi's "assembly" plant for IEP)?

I'm not proposing this to get a built-in-Britain product, I am proposing to reduce the effective cost of the eVoyager project by generating demand for additional bodyshells and also to produce a train that at least shares large numbers of parts with existing ones.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Well, in general it's a good idea. This would be an ideal train to bring some of the Class 1 routes that did not make it into Intercity up to something closer to inter-city standard. Also, the standardisation idea is a very good one.
 

D365

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
7,445
Remember that the 222 bodyshell is different to that of 220/221, as it is not designed to tilt. A development of the current Meridian would be suitable as "Class 223". Voyager units should remain in the 22x series in the name of continuity, since the series started as (is for now) diesel-only. I'm sure there's many ways to get aroun emissions regulations - could the 222s be re-engined, with existing power units going into Voyager trailers?

There's no guarantee of any work being done in the UK (Derby is not set up for steel-car production), but Bombardier could open a new factory if enough work is guaranteed. The complete eVoyager project and additional carriages for all fleets should do the trick.

Class 223; a worthy replacement for the Hitachi SET project?
 

TGV

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Messages
732
Location
320km/h Voie Libre
There may be only 11.25t on each driving axle, but a seven coach formation would have 12 driving axles, giving it a total weight of 135t on the driving axles, out of a total weight of 316.5t. (42.7%).

Meanwhile a 2+8 HST would have a weight of ~140t on the driven axles, but would weigh in at 474t (29.5%).
It's not just the total adhesive traction weight you have to consider. If the axle load is too low, you may find that you are exposed to problems with Nadal's criterion (nothing to do with a Spanish tennis player) - it is the DQ/Q (delta q over q) calculation that relates lateral and vertical forces simultaneously on a wheelset. Basically if the ratio exceeds +1 then only a small extra force will cause a derailment. In practice you want to be WELL clear of that. Now a total vehicle mass of 44t doesn't seem to be a problem there (it's greater than a Mk3), but you have to also bear in mind the maximum lateral load the wheelset will experience (also a function of the vehicle's mass), not just the overall axle load.

In other words, if you removed 1.5t from a vehicle, you may find it exposes you to wheel/rail dynamic problems at extremes of performance.

It's not always as simple as swapping engines over and bolting on pantographs.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,774
. Now a total vehicle mass of 44t doesn't seem to be a problem there (it's greater than a Mk3), but you have to also bear in mind the maximum lateral load the wheelset will experience (also a function of the vehicle's mass), not just the overall axle load.

In other words, if you removed 1.5t from a vehicle, you may find it exposes you to wheel/rail dynamic problems at extremes of performance.

It's not always as simple as swapping engines over and bolting on pantographs.
Right.... if there is weight spare... what about a 600kW transformer on each vehicle, then run the 25kV bus line that is required anyway through every single vehicle?

That way a pantograph vehicle can be a pantograph motor. It makes each vehicle heavier and improves power:weight ratio.

This is of course dependent on there being sufficient room under the sole bar for such a transformer.

I wish I had the capability to perform the required calculations to determine if there would be problems with the weight causing instability though....
 
Last edited:

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve unless you are trying to remove the need for the bi-mode. We don't need a 125mph self power unit.

Recover the voyagers from the WCML on the Birmingham - Scotland for example.

If the rumours about Hull electrification are true some 180s will become free.

Electrify the MML the 222s are back.

Even on XC although I totally disagree with it bi-mode is the way forward. There are very few diagrams that require 125mph running that are 100% diesel. With known it will only be Penzance - London (Newbury - London is not really long enough to justify carrying wieght in transformers) but surely we have enough 222s for this if MML is electrified.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,774
I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve unless you are trying to remove the need for the bi-mode. We don't need a 125mph self power unit.

Recover the voyagers from the WCML on the Birmingham - Scotland for example.

If the rumours about Hull electrification are true some 180s will become free.

Electrify the MML the 222s are back.

Even on XC although I totally disagree with it bi-mode is the way forward. There are very few diagrams that require 125mph running that are 100% diesel. With known it will only be Penzance - London (Newbury - London is not really long enough to justify carrying wieght in transformers) but surely we have enough 222s for this if MML is electrified.
You need at-least five additional units, even with the eVoyager project, for XC to displace its remaining HSTs.
The MML 222s will have to be partly retained on Midland Main Line for Leeds and the Derby via Melton Mowbray trains, the remaining trains, after the eVoyager programme, have any number of uses such as on the branches of TPE North that will not be electrified or on the South Transpennine.

There are requirements for additional bi-mode trains beyond the existing Voyagers or those provided by the IEP project to enable all longer distance trains with significant electrification on part of the route to move to bi-mode operation.

As for transformers being too heavy to justify carrying them on Cornish trains for Newbury..... it is easily worth it since the fuel consumption of a train with nine cars, two of which are transformer vehicles, will be similar to a nine car multiple unit with two engines isolated. (Which is less than a quarter, which is what happens when a Voyager looses an engine)

On such a low performance route as the B&H and the cornish main line, keeping all engines running would burn more fuel than having two isolated/removed thanks to extra idle fuel consumed.

EDIT:
This brochure from Cummins would seem to indicate that a 1436kg engine with 600hp is available in the QSX-15. This engine apparently conforms with the necessary Stage 3B/Tier 4 engine requirements and I think will fit under the sole bar of a Cl22x type bodyshell.

1.44m x 1.08m x 1.23m instead of 1.68m x 0.87m x 1.62m. (LxHxW) so the engine is lower and narrower but slightly longer.

Class 180s should be at the bottom of the list for continued use thanks to the diminutive class size, lack of ED conversion capability and the documented propensity of them for catching fire.
 
Last edited:

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,549
Location
Macclesfield
Remember that the 222 bodyshell is different to that of 220/221, as it is not designed to tilt.
I remain fairly convinced that the bodies of Meridians share an identical profile, length and shape to the 220s and 221s. The main benefit of the Meridians not being designed with any sort of provision, passive or active, to tilt, is that it has been possible to fit more equipment beneath the sole bar, as the space is not intended to be occupied by the tilt system. I have never seen any evidence that the 222s employ a different body profile to the Voyagers.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,549
Location
Macclesfield
The MML 222s will have to be partly retained on Midland Main Line for Leeds and the Derby via Melton Mowbray trains, the remaining trains, after the eVoyager programme, have any number of uses such as on the branches of TPE North that will not be electrified or on the South Transpennine.
I know that it hasn’t been stated definitively (Of course, nothing has been announced for definite with regards to MML electrification), but it would be rather silly for MML electrification not to encompass the full route that the Midland Mainline long distance services cover – To Leeds, and not just Sheffield: It isn’t a great distance to electrify in order to link an electrified Midland Mainline into the ECML at Doncaster and Wakefield.

As for Derby via Melton Mowbray services, I can see these being dropped from the core MML prospectus if electrification goes ahead.
 

mbonwick

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2006
Messages
6,180
Location
Kendal
QSK19-L (the straight loco version) which is proposed for the cl. 73 rebuild is emissions compliant and still in production.

QSK19-R (the canted MU version) cannot be made tier IIIB compliant due to the space requirements around it and has ceased production.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,774
I know that it hasn’t been stated definitively (Of course, nothing has been announced for definite with regards to MML electrification), but it would be rather silly for MML electrification not to encompass the full route that the Midland Mainline long distance services cover – To Leeds, and not just Sheffield: It isn’t a great distance to electrify in order to link an electrified Midland Mainline into the ECML at Doncaster and Wakefield.

As for Derby via Melton Mowbray services, I can see these being dropped from the core MML prospectus if electrification goes ahead.
Electrification of the Sheffield - Leeds route in isolation is not going to have a very high BCR, I have a feeling we would have to wait for an actual XC infill project for this to happen, and that could be a long way off.
So keeping a 2-3 Cl222s assigned to EMT in the short term would be a good idea, probably three of the seven car sets (9 after eVoyager hopefully) to cover the 3 Leeds trains and the Derby train.
We can't assume it would be dropped, otherwise me might as well drop the North of Edinburgh trains from EC to avoid the IEP Bi-mode....

There are then the trains that go to Alfreton and similar places to consider, it appears the Erewash Valley will not be benefiting from electrification.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,549
Location
Macclesfield
Electrification of the Sheffield - Leeds route in isolation is not going to have a very high BCR, I have a feeling we would have to wait for an actual XC infill project for this to happen, and that could be a long way off.
So keeping a 2-3 Cl222s assigned to EMT in the short term would be a good idea, probably three of the seven car sets (9 after eVoyager hopefully) to cover the 3 Leeds trains and the Derby train.
We can't assume it would be dropped, otherwise me might as well drop the North of Edinburgh trains from EC to avoid the IEP Bi-mode....

There are then the trains that go to Alfreton and similar places to consider, it appears the Erewash Valley will not be benefiting from electrification.
A marginal service via a diversionary route, probably more to keep up drivers’ route knowledge than through a large defined demand to the service although I confess that my knowledge on the via Melton Mowbray runs is sketchy, is a completely different kettle of fish to ECMLs’ Anglo-scottish services that serve large passenger markets to and from some of Scotland’s largest cities and support links to the more northerly reaches of Britian. Even the shorter distance English extensions to the likes of Harrogate, Hull and Lincoln serve fairly well established commuter markets.

And how much the extra cost of having to keep on just 2 or 3 Meridians in the fleet, non-standard to the rest of the MML train fleet?

Where has it been said that the Erewash valley is not to be electrified? I’m not aware that there’s any hard and fast decisions having been made on what MML electrification is expected to entail, in the same way that TPE electrification was first announced by the media as being between “Leeds and Manchester”, before it became clear that the obvious extension to York was also included, and there is potential for several more of the branches to join the scheme before its’ full scope is set in stone.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,774
Where has it been said that the Erewash valley is not to be electrified? I’m not aware that there’s any hard and fast decisions having been made on what MML electrification is expected to entail, in the same way that TPE electrification was first announced by the media as being between “Leeds and Manchester”, before it became clear that the obvious extension to York was also included, and there is potential for several more of the branches to join the scheme before its’ full scope is set in stone.
Where has it been shown to have been electrified?
It is not included in the preliminary proposal for the MML in the NR Electrification RUS, and since only a few trains from London use it, the case for electrification is rather weak IMO.

You have more chance of getting the Sheffield-Doncaster component than the Erewash Valley, and even Sheffield-Doncaster is rather iffy. (its 3tpd rather than hourly as with the Hull and York branches of TPE-North)./

Small non standard fleets are not that expensive if the alternative to maintaining a handful of units at a depot that will already maintain similar units (since it would still be able to use the existing depot probably) is to electrify rather a lot of trackage to replace them.

Oh and there are the through trains to Lincoln via Nottingham to consider.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,549
Location
Macclesfield
Where has it been shown to have been electrified?
It is not included in the preliminary proposal for the MML in the NR Electrification RUS, and since only a few trains from London use it, the case for electrification is rather weak IMO.

You have more chance of getting the Sheffield-Doncaster component than the Erewash Valley, and even Sheffield-Doncaster is rather iffy. (its 3tpd rather than hourly as with the Hull and York branches of TPE-North)./
Sheffield – Doncaster has great value in wiring up an arterial freight route, and in allowing eVoyagers to make use of their electric capability for longer (For both of these it would be exceptionally useful if Birmingham to Derby was also wired, but unfortunately I can see that falling outside of the scope of MML electrification – Only half of the 4tph that use that stretch would be able to make use of the wires at the most, less if the 221s do not get pantograph cars).

The hourly Sheffield – Doncaster – Adwick Northern service could also be EMU operated if the Rotherham loop was wired up in addition (Although I don’t know how that would sit with the presently proposed tram-train trials), although it would probably be difficult to source an EMU small enough to operate the service cost effectively when demand is presently met most of the time with a single car 153, or a 2-car Pacer if Northern are feeling generous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh and there are the through trains to Lincoln via Nottingham to consider.
Another opportunity for the DfT to push Bi-mode IEP, and IEPs in general then ;) Granted that that is an important flow to retain direct trains on IMO.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,774
How about a 5 car train with 4 600hp engines for 2400hp and a pantograph trailer?

Weight would be roughly 230t, for a superior to HST power to weight ratio.

Could recast the TPE-North West timetable to join it up with the ATW Cardiff-Manchester services, which would give South Wales a direct route to Scotland.

The breaking of services by traction capability is no longer required if you embrace Bi-mode, that it is its greatest benefit.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
Oh and there are the through trains to Lincoln via Nottingham to consider.
Get rid of them just like BR did when the ECML was electrified. No point in buying expensive DMUs for marginal services. If there is demand drag it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
How about a 5 car train with 4 600hp engines for 2400hp and a pantograph trailer?

Weight would be roughly 230t, for a superior to HST power to weight ratio.

Could recast the TPE-North West timetable to join it up with the ATW Cardiff-Manchester services, which would give South Wales a direct route to Scotland.

The breaking of services by traction capability is no longer required if you embrace Bi-mode, that it is its greatest benefit.
Lol - lets make routes up to justify bi-mode.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,774
Get rid of them just like BR did when the ECML was electrified. No point in buying expensive DMUs for marginal services. If there is demand drag it!
You mean like the "marginal" trains to Hull that were effectively abandoned at electrification and now sustain a fully commercial TOC?
BR abandoned them because Bi-mode was not an option and running diesel under the wires was not very popular with BR management.

Dragging takes hours, just look at the Pendolino drag on the North Wales line, that is slower than Voyagers even if you exclude the coupling time at Crewe. Especially as the Nottingham-Lincoln line almost certainly has MU/HST differentials on it that Loco hauled EMUs won't have access to.


Lol - lets make routes up to justify bi-mode.
Let's never try any new routes or improve connectivity on the network in an attempt to make the railway more attractive.

The current service pattern must remain in aspic.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
You mean like the "marginal" trains to Hull that were effectively abandoned at electrification and now sustain a fully commercial TOC?
BR abandoned them because Bi-mode was not an option and running diesel under the wires was not very popular with BR management.

Dragging takes hours, just look at the Pendolino drag on the North Wales line, that is slower than Voyagers even if you exclude the coupling time at Crewe. Especially as the Nottingham-Lincoln line almost certainly has MU/HST differentials on it that Loco hauled EMUs won't .
It doesn't. Same speed though, differentials don't apply until the Lincoln - Market Rasen - Barnetby. Interesting, haven't noticed hours of difference between the dragged pendo or the voyager. In fact for most services it makes little difference for the end user in terms of time.

BR preferred to swap locos - virgin abandonned this with the voyagers. Loco swaps worked well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For interest to you know why the Lincoln - London service exists via Nottingham? Would it exist if EMT had more sprinters to give it a 4 car service to Nottingham? Can 222s use sprinter speeds (no)
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,774
It doesn't. Same speed though, differentials don't apply until the Lincoln - Market Rasen - Barnetby. Interesting, haven't noticed hours of difference between the dragged pendo or the voyager. In fact for most services it makes little difference for the end user in terms of time.
Excluding coupling times the Pendolino drag appears to be eight minutes slower between Crewe and Holyhead than the Voyager operated services.
This may not sound like a lot but considering the amount of money thrown at upgrades to shave a few minutes off journey times, simply throwing it away is the height of lunacy.

And what happens when the slow accelerating loco hauled formation crawls across the Newark level crossing because it is accelerating away from Newark Castle very very slowly? The slower the train crosses the ECML the more trouble it causes for ECML capacity.

The fact that the Pendolino drag is only run for one train per day would seem to indicate that Virgin consider it to be more expensive than running the Voyager all the way from London under diesel, even if they run two Voyagers as far as Crewe before turning one back.
They only do it for crew training.

Additionally it is telling that the do not attempt to use loco drags during West Coast route blockades, instead preferring to use large Voyager lashups over the Chiltern route. This being despite the presence of loco release loops at Paddington which they could use if it was advantageous.

BR preferred to swap locos - virgin abandonned this with the voyagers. Loco swaps worked well.
Then why were HSTs on the Eastern Region not replaced with conventional loco hauled formations that could be hauled by electric traction? They apparently preferred to use diesels all the way.

Or why were HSTs used on various diesel routes on the West Coast Main Line rather than diesel loco hauled extensions of the existing electric locomotive hauled sets?

The truth is that loco swaps were already being abandoned by BR in the 80s, the only reason the XC loco swaps survived until privatisation was the fact that they were still using Mark 2s rather than newer Mark 3s, had the BR rolling stock and electrification programme extended into the 90s it is highly likely that they would have been replaced either with more displaced HSTs or with diesel multiple units.

For interest to you know why the Lincoln - London service exists via Nottingham? Would it exist if EMT had more sprinters to give it a 4 car service to Nottingham? Can 222s use sprinter speeds (no)
The expenditure required to upgrade the SP differential to an MU or HST differential is far less than that required to upgrade it to a non differential linespeed or even to a CS negative differential speed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top