Second hint from DfT at new DMUs being procured

[BananaRepublic]

Maybe there is even scope for a new generation of Pacer bus based trains for many of the low revenue northern services?

Tram Trains maybe ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tram Trains maybe ?

A 4- or 5-section version of the current Metrolink tram design, with a diesel generator module installed above the floor at one end, perhaps?

Neil

 

[Haydn1971]

A 4- or 5-section version of the current Metrolink tram design, with a diesel generator module installed above the floor at one end, perhaps?

Limited to no more than 45mph ?

 

[ryan125hst]

Why not just refurbish the existing Pacer Units for another 15 years service? if you removed the toilets most of the disability issues just go away.
Services up to 75 minutes in the South East are deemed not to need them (455)even on semi fast inter conurbations services (313/2) why are toilets needed for short commuter hops in the North?
Maybe there is even scope for a new generation of Pacer bus based trains for many of the low revenue northern services?

Because many Pacers are used on longer journeys. I traveled from Sheffield to Retford yesterday on a double Pacer (142+144), but the train goes to Lincoln. Sheffield to Lincoln is around an hour and a half. There is an hourly frequency and the only station that has toilets en route is Retford (Worksop require a key from staff, and they go home at about 5pm). Add this to the fact that most trains come from Scunthorpe and passengers may be travelling longer than that hour and a half, and I would say that toilets are very much needed on that route.

 

[alexl92]

Refurbishing the existing pacers is a dreadful idea. It's not just about disability access, it's about how ridiculously noisy and unpleasant they are to travel on.

 

[pemma]

Why not just refurbish the existing Pacer Units for another 15 years service? if you removed the toilets most of the disability issues just go away.
Services up to 75 minutes in the South East are deemed not to need them (455)even on semi fast inter conurbations services (313/2) why are toilets needed for short commuter hops in the North?
Maybe there is even scope for a new generation of Pacer bus based trains for many of the low revenue northern services?

Biggest problem with Pacers is they were designed for low usage routes and they are being used on services where the loadings are very high considering the size of the train. This causes dwell times to be extended (as Pacers have less doors than Sprinters) and Pacers also struggle more with acceleration (compared to Sprinters) when they are carrying crush loadings. In short Pacers are not suitable trains for the type of services Northern are forced to use them on.

Northern have very few diagrams where a 2 car Pacer is adequate capacity all day and yet they have over 100 2 car Pacers. What Northern need is 3 car DMUs (a 3 car 172 has similar capacity to a 4 car 142), they have plenty of 2 car 150s which can cover the lower usage diagrams and the more additional carriages they get the more 4 car Pacer diagrams they'll be.

How many of the toilet-less trains you refer to are used on lines with only an hourly service? Up here Merseyrail trains don't have toilets, neither do Metrolink trams or Tyne & Wear Metro trains but those are all used on lines with a frequent service. Down South do trains on lines with an hourly service (such as the Marshlink Line) not all have toilets?

 

[AM9]

Biggest problem with Pacers is they were designed for low usage routes and they are being used on services where the loadings are very high considering the size of the train. This causes dwell times to be extended (as Pacers have less doors than Sprinters) and Pacers also struggle more with acceleration (compared to Sprinters) when they are carrying crush loadings. In short Pacers are not suitable trains for the type of services Northern are forced to use them on.

Northern have very few diagrams where a 2 car Pacer is adequate capacity all day and yet they have over 100 2 car Pacers. What Northern need is 3 car DMUs (a 3 car 172 has similar capacity to a 4 car 142), they have plenty of 2 car 150s which can cover the lower usage diagrams and the more additional carriages they get the more 4 car Pacer diagrams they'll be.

How many of the toilet-less trains you refer to are used on lines with only an hourly service? Up here Merseyrail trains don't have toilets, neither do Metrolink trams or Tyne & Wear Metro trains but those are all used on lines with a frequent service. Down South do trains on lines with an hourly service (such as the Marshlink Line) not all have toilets?

There are hardly any routes in the NSE area that have services with such low frequencies. There are just too many passengers to make it sustainable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Limited to no more than 45mph ?

Are they really that slow? Genuinely surprised they can't do say 60mph on the segregated ex-railway sections.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Refurbishing the existing pacers is a dreadful idea. It's not just about disability access, it's about how ridiculously noisy and unpleasant they are to travel on.

Even if you do, though, there still aren't enough of them. Full-and-standing trains at 3 on a Saturday afternoon, and commuter trains that actually leave people behind, are inexcusable. That is what is happening in the North, while fast trains leave Milton Keynes southbound in the peaks with spare seats.

(though to be fair the reason for the latter is that LM's EMUs only come in 4 cars, and there are quite a few trains on which 10-car would be right, so they are 12 with spare seats or 8 with a heavy standing load)

Neil

 

[JamesRowden]

Down South do trains on lines with an hourly service (such as the Marshlink Line) not all have toilets?

A daily Brighton-Ore-Hastings-Ore-Brighton run is operated using a 313 which does not have a toilet and the service calls at 3 stations that only have an hourly service. The Ore-Brighton journey time is 1hr29m.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Are they really that slow? Genuinely surprised they can't do say 60mph on the segregated ex-railway sections.

Metrolink trams (maybe all UK tram systems) are limited to 80kph (50mph) even on old heavy-rail routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are hardly any routes in the NSE area that have services with such low frequencies. There are just too many passengers to make it sustainable.

There are more than you think, mainly on the fringes. Bedford-Bletchley, Watford-St Albans Abbey (45 minute odd frequency) to name two. Oxford-Bicester before it closed for the Chiltern work. Some of the Thames Valley branches off-peak?

Neil

 

[pemma]

There are hardly any routes in the NSE area that have services with such low frequencies. There are just too many passengers to make it sustainable.

Exactly. Saying there's trains in the South East without toilets so why should Northern have trains with toilets is a pointless argument.

Are they really that slow? Genuinely surprised they can't do say 60mph on the segregated ex-railway sections.

It's actually 80km/h which is the manufacturer's top speed. They are slower than the T68s, which caused problems when there were a mixture of T68s and M5000s on the Altrincham and Bury lines. The ride quality is also very poor over 40mph but Metrolink blames that on wear on the track left by T68s. For a while they were blaming everything on the T68s, as though once they got withdrawn all the problems would go away, but they haven't - the M5000s fail as well!

 

[edwin_m]

Tram Trains maybe ?

A tram-train is not a cheap solution. Per seat it is more expensive than either a tram or a train (though most of them can run at 100km/h). They are only likely to be worthwhile if they allow through journeys to an important destination that the railway doesn't serve. If funding is limited this means a link to an existing not a new tramway, and the number of places where this is possible and worthwhile is fairly small.

 

[Emyr]

Are they really that slow? Genuinely surprised they can't do say 60mph on the segregated ex-railway sections.

Neil

On those sections, they oscillate a LOT :cry:

 

[macka]

Tram-trains are suitable only when you have a preexisting tram network and you want to extend it onto lightly used railway lines. For the majority of the North this is not the case. And as already been said the way trams are used is very different to trains.

Moreover, the infrastructure changes required (electrification with equipment suitable for both DC and AC for future proofing, platform changes, etc) means you might as well electrify the line properly and use EMUs. The Sheffield-Rotherham expansion will likely use standard NR OHLE but powered with DC so that when the MML is electrified the tram-train section will just switch over to 25 kV AC.

 

[Greybeard33]

In view of the current Network Rail/Bombardier trials of a battery powered 379 at Old Dalby, one option might be a hybrid DEMU. This would use batteries for acceleration and regenerative braking, with small-ish diesel generators that would supply just enough power to maintain maximum speed with a bit extra for battery charging.

Data gathered during the experiment will be used to determine what form an independently powered electric multiple unit will take, be it a straight battery unit or hybrid.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/2014/aug/On-track-trials-of-prototype-battery-powered-train-begin/ (my bolding)
The smaller engines should require less space for the exhaust particulate filters than a conventional DMU. The unit could also be equipped with a pantograph and/or 3rd rail shoes for bi-mode operation. If based on an existing EMU class, might the development costs be lower than for a new bespoke DMU design to comply with the emissions requirements?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In view of the current Network Rail/Bombardier trials of a battery powered 379 at Old Dalby, one option might be a hybrid DEMU. This would use batteries for acceleration and regenerative braking, with small-ish diesel generators that would supply just enough power to maintain maximum speed with a bit extra for battery charging.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/2014/aug/On-track-trials-of-prototype-battery-powered-train-begin/ (my bolding)
The smaller engines should require less space for the exhaust particulate filters than a conventional DMU. The unit could also be equipped with a pantograph and/or 3rd rail shoes for bi-mode operation. If based on an existing EMU class, might the development costs be lower than for a new bespoke DMU design to comply with the emissions requirements?

Such a unit could perhaps run at 100 or 110mph under the wires/on third rail, then much slower, say 75mph, on diesel, to further keep the engine size or number of engines low. This would be ideal for many part-electrified routes such as Barrow/Cumbrian Coast, Buxton, Windermere (if not wired on the cheap), Blackpool South, Uckfield etc. It could also be used to reinstate through services between Liverpool and Preston via Ormskirk, or Liverpool and Wigan via Kirkby.

Neil

 

[Class377/5]

In view of the current Network Rail/Bombardier trials of a battery powered 379 at Old Dalby, one option might be a hybrid DEMU. This would use batteries for acceleration and regenerative braking, with small-ish diesel generators that would supply just enough power to maintain maximum speed with a bit extra for battery charging.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/2014/aug/On-track-trials-of-prototype-battery-powered-train-begin/ (my bolding)
The smaller engines should require less space for the exhaust particulate filters than a conventional DMU. The unit could also be equipped with a pantograph and/or 3rd rail shoes for bi-mode operation. If based on an existing EMU class, might the development costs be lower than for a new bespoke DMU design to comply with the emissions requirements?

There's not going to be much space under a EMU for batteries and diesel generators too. When they fitted batteries using some spare space and they pretty much took all the space available.

The idea of the IPEMU is to do away completely with diesel power, replacing it with batteries for around 60 mile range.

 

[Greybeard33]

There's not going to be much space under a EMU for batteries and diesel generators too. When they fitted batteries using some spare space and they pretty much took all the space available.

Although the batteries would be smaller for a hybrid than for a battery-only IPEMU. Likewise there is not going to be much space under the floor for the engine and exhaust filters on a new generation DMU. In either case, maybe an above floor compartment might have to be considered?

The idea of the IPEMU is to do away completely with diesel power, replacing it with batteries for around 60 mile range.

From the Network Rail news release I quoted, it appears that they are considering both straight battery and diesel hybrid options for an IPEMU.

 

[edwin_m]

An off the wall option.

The emissions regulations apply to the engine not to the train. So a new or old train with a new engine would be caught by the latest standards, but fit the existing engines to new trains and they would still be bound by the standards in force when the engines were built.

 

[dgl]

I vision a hybrid train that can partially (even if it only a small amount) charge itself via small section of third rail (or induction based if needed for safety) at each station. This would save money compared to full electrification and would enable the last mile electric trains to either work longer routes or have less batteries and save weight for short un-electrified sections.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I vision a hybrid train that can partially (even if it only a small amount) charge itself via small section of third rail (or induction based if needed for safety) at each station. This would save money compared to full electrification and would enable the last mile electric trains to either work longer routes or have less batteries and save weight for short un-electrified sections.

Wouldn't that be dangerous for track workers, the induction would possibly also act on the steel toe caps of their safety boots

 

[Nym]

Wouldn't that be dangerous for track workers, the induction would possibly also act on the steel toe caps of their safety boots

Not to mention that at this level of power, you'd be affecting people on the stations with pacemakers. Simply transferring current with copper / aluminum is probably best for 'in station' charging.

 

[rebmcr]

In view of the current Network Rail/Bombardier trials of a battery powered 379 at Old Dalby, one option might be a hybrid DEMU.

That'd be an EDMU (Electro-diesel, not Diesel Electric).

 

[Elecman]

A charging rail only made live when a short section of track circuit or fouling bar immediatly adjacent is occupied, would work but would be hideously expensive in switchgear and interlocks, would also suggest using side contact rail as it can be shrouded for safety .

 

[jopsuk]

the technology already exists and is used for trams

 

[edwin_m]

A charging rail only made live when a short section of track circuit or fouling bar immediatly adjacent is occupied, would work but would be hideously expensive in switchgear and interlocks, would also suggest using side contact rail as it can be shrouded for safety .

A normal track circuit wouldn't work, as these fail "safe" and report the track as occupied when it may not be. The link posted by jopsuk explains that the systems for trams detect a radio signal transmitted by the tram to prove that a tram is present before energising that part of the rail. However I'm not sure anything like this is needed anyway - if a continuous third rail is considered acceptably safe then one that is only present in a few places would be safer.

More of an issue would be getting the power to the charging points. The charging current would need to be several times more than today's maximum, not achievable with 750V third rail and probably not with 25kV OLE either. Most stations won't have a sufficiently good domestic supply nearby to achieve this, let alone two independent supplies to protect against faults and allow maintenance. So it's likely to be down to running feeder cables along the railway. If you're doing that with high voltage it's probably just as easy to send it down some OLE instead, and with low voltage you'll need a higher voltage feeder and substations which represent most of the cost of today's third rail system.

 

[rebmcr]

if a continuous third rail is considered acceptably safe then one that is only present in a few places would be safer.

It's not as clear-cut as that. It would certainly reduce the physical size of the risk area, and thus reduce the opportunities to come into contact with the rail — but that in turn will increase complacency. It's not easy to declare which will have greater impact on the likelihood of accidents.

 

[Class377/5]

I vision a hybrid train that can partially (even if it only a small amount) charge itself via small section of third rail (or induction based if needed for safety) at each station. This would save money compared to full electrification and would enable the last mile electric trains to either work longer routes or have less batteries and save weight for short un-electrified sections.

A very real alternative.

Not to mention that at this level of power, you'd be affecting people on the stations with pacemakers. Simply transferring current with copper / aluminum is probably best for 'in station' charging.

Wouldn't that be dangerous for track workers, the induction would possibly also act on the steel toe caps of their safety boots

Sorry but both of these are complete crap. The induction technology for a start only works when units are over them. Secondly the technology is used by trams in pedestrian areas in Europe now, neither are causing harm to people.

 

[Nym]

Sorry but both of these are complete crap. The induction technology for a start only works when units are over them. Secondly the technology is used by trams in pedestrian areas in Europe now, neither are causing harm to people.

Yes, Trams...

Trams with traction motors totaling less than 1MW with short inter-station runtimes?

Scale that to longer inter-station runtimes and 10MW of traction motors (IC Length Unit)