Suggestions to phase out diesel-only rolling stock if electrification does not progress as quickly as planned

[PTR 444]

The government has clearly stated that it wants to ban all diesel trains by 2040, but to do so would require hundreds more miles of overhead electrification to be built, and in the looming economic crisis I’m not sure that this would be feasible in a 20-year timeframe. The other issue is that new diesel-only rolling stock such as the Class 196 and 197 is still in the process of being rolled out, so will be nowhere near life expired by the time 2040 comes along.

I therefore propose that rather than an outright ban on diesel by 2040, we limit it to running on certain lines where no other traction is feasible. My first suggestion would be to ban all production of new diesel-only rolling stock immediately, with diesel only being permitted as part of electric or battery multi-mode stock. That way, electrification can begin on routes which remove the most diesel mileage running under wires.

As more diesel-only units become life expired, their replacements would come in the form of bi or tri-modes, and allow electrification to be prioritised on the busiest routes. Assuming we let stock live to its full life expectancy, I would expect the Express Sprinters and Networkers to go in the mid-2030s, older Turbostars, Voyagers and Coradias in the 2040s, and 185 Desiros and newer Turbostars in the early 2050s, each being replaced with multi-mode units in the process where all-electric running is not possible. This would leave the CAF Civities consigned to running on routes where electrification, battery or hydrogen running has the lowest business case, such as in the Scottish Highlands.

I would expect diesel running under wires to be banned by 2050 but no outright ban on all lines until 2060 (legacy bi-modes would still be permitted but must run on electric or battery power all the time). By then, all of the national network must have been converted to allow electric, battery, hydrogen or other revolutionary carbon-neutral fuel running.

I know my idea is less ambitious but I just can’t see an outright diesel ban by 2040 in the current economic climate.

 

[Irascible]

Anyone got the breakdown in costs for a km of OHLE on plain line? ( including supply ). I wonder if we could start packaging ( conceptually ) planning & installs of say 10km or 20km ( or whatever distance 5 mins at line speed covers ) sections of knitting on the easiest stretches of line we can find, to keep topping up dual-mode battery EMUs ( or even freight locomotives ). I think the kick in the teeth for that idea might be signalling, unfortunately.

Someone is bound to seriously propose the idea of replacing the fuel tank of a newer DMU with a battery & the engine & transmission with a motor at some point I do think we're going to have to look very hard at alternative fuel for diesels though, because I can't see us hitting targets right now either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Someone is bound to seriously propose the idea of replacing the fuel tank of a newer DMU with a battery & the engine & transmission with a motor at some point

I don't see why that's an entirely stupid suggestion; as long as you feed in rotation at the correct speed and torque to the final drive it'd work just fine.

The Class 331 and 195 are very similar vehicles, the key difference is how that rotation is supplied.

 

[Irascible]

I don't see why that's an entirely stupid suggestion; as long as you feed in rotation at the correct speed and torque to the final drive it'd work just fine.

I suppose if the motor sat where the gearbox/torque converter is & as long as the ancilliaries are already electric, or you're either adding another drive system for them or replacing all the ancilliary systems too ( would already need to replace the control system anyway ).

 

[D365]

The Class 331 and 195 are very similar vehicles, the key difference is how that rotation is supplied.

Not under the solebar they aren't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not under the sole bar they aren't.

No, because one's a DMU and one's an EMU. But the box with the seats and windows in (and various ancillaries like lighting, doors and bogs) is, and the bogies on the 195 require rotation as an input. I'm not saying you could easily fit the actual 331 kit to a 195, but you could certainly fit something.

If you can convert a D78 to a DMU (which involves replacing traction motors, which are what gives you that rotation) then you can easily do that.

 

[D365]

If you can convert a D78 to a DMU (which involves replacing traction motors, which are what gives you that rotation) then you can easily do that.

The LNR Class 230s are DEMUs. The motors have been replaced, but that is because the AC traction package makes maintenance easier.

It's far easier to go from EMU to DEMU, than from DMU to DEMU.

 

[Irascible]

If you can convert a D78 to a DMU (which involves replacing traction motors, which are what gives you that rotation) then you can easily do that.

It's been converted into a DEMU though, no? which is an EMU with a generator on board, not a diesel + transmission mounted to the body driving a cardan shaft to a bogie.

( haha, why did I start this... )

 

[py_megapixel]

Incredibly short sighted in my view to select a mechanical rather than electric drivetrain for the 195s - or do CAF not offer diesel-electric?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's far easier to go from EMU to DEMU, than from DMU to DEMU.

Yes, true, but that doesn't make it impossible to convert a DMU (mechanical) to a (battery) EMU.

Classic car conversions exist, for example, and you have much more space to play with on a train than in a car.

 

[Irascible]

Incredibly short sighted in my view to select a mechanical rather than electric drivetrain for the 195s - or do CAF not offer diesel-electric?

Are they cheap? I suspect "cheap and available" might have been a major selling point... also it's rail procurement. Do *anyone* offer a DEMU aside from Stadler right now, other than the people rebuilding previous generations?

Yes, true, but that doesn't make it impossible to convert a DMU (mechanical) to a (battery) EMU.

Classic car conversions exist, for example, and you have much more space to play with on a train than in a car.

You could, but I also get the feeling it might be easier to turn them into trailers & attach a brand new electric powercar.

 

[Domh245]

Angel's HyDrive conversion for the 165s is of interest here however, as they are doing a D(H)MU -> DEMU conversion in the same vein as @Bletchleyite suggests. If it proves to be a) successful, b) not an engineering nightmare, then there is definitely scope for further conversions, although I think the most you can hope for is hybrid DEMUs rather than full bimodes given the difficulty that then comes from hacking bits of roof off. It'd have still been preferable for them to have been built as proper DEMUs in the first place as even a conversion still leaves it as a bit of a lame duck compared to what it could have been

 

[py_megapixel]

Are they cheap? I suspect "cheap and available" might have been a major selling point... also it's rail procurement. Do *anyone* offer a DEMU aside from Stadler right now, other than the people rebuilding previous generations?

Bombardier offers an Aventra with diesel, though I think it was unveiled after Northern's contracts were signed

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are they cheap? I suspect "cheap and available" might have been a major selling point... also it's rail procurement. Do *anyone* offer a DEMU aside from Stadler right now, other than the people rebuilding previous generations?

They seem to offer one in principle according to their website:

https://www.caf.net/en/productos-servicios/familia/civity/modularidad.php

Civity platform includes trains with different types of traction based on a single concept of a modular, low-floor vehicle. Civity trains are available with the following types of traction:

• Electric (EMU)
• Diesel-mechanical or diesel-hydraulic (DMU)
• Diesel-electric (DEMU)
• Bi-mode (BMU)

That said, that doesn't mean the kit will necessarily fit into a UK bodyshell.

 

[py_megapixel]

They seem to offer one in principle according to their website:

https://www.caf.net/en/productos-servicios/familia/civity/modularidad.php

That said, that doesn't mean the kit will necessarily fit into a UK bodyshell.

Rather amusingly, that website says "Civity trains with all types of traction can be fitted with batteries"...

I wonder how they would build a battery DMMU!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Rather amusingly, that website says "Civity trains with all types of traction can be fitted with batteries"...

I wonder how they would build a battery DMMU!

I guess you could have emergency batteries to run the bogs, lighting and HVAC? Though I think that may well not have been what the web designer was thinking

 

[Irascible]

That said, that doesn't mean the kit will necessarily fit into a UK bodyshell.

And the Stadler solution has the same problem as sticking a locomotive on, takes up platform space ( worse given it can't hang off the end ). Looks like the CAF kit is mostly in the roof? I don't think that'll work for us somehow...

Theoretically you can use smaller diesels with hybrids, you want them either running at best speed or completely off so they're always at peak efficiency - someone just needs to get round to arranging it underneath something we can use. And in the future you *coiuld* usefully just pull the gensets out & stick more batteries in. Hey DfT, how about a proper 10 year rolling plan to replace the entire 80s/90s DMU fleet? that'll wake the builders up.

 

[Domh245]

Looks like the CAF kit is mostly in the roof? I don't think that'll work for us somehow...

Mostly a result of needing to have a low floor. The main difference* between a roof mounted DEMU set up and an underfloor mounted DEMU setup is how long the cables between generating unit, traction electronics, and motors are!

*There are obviously a few more differences, but point is that they're largely identical, it's just a case of where you put the different components

 

[Irascible]

Mostly a result of needing to have a low floor. The main difference* between a roof mounted DEMU set up and an underfloor mounted DEMU setup is how long the cables between generating unit, traction electronics, and motors are!

*There are obviously a few more differences, but point is that they're largely identical, it's just a case of where you put the different components

For sure, but I meant you can't just adapt an existing design for us, it'd need repackaging completely ( and things like cooling systems I doubt would carry over at all ).

 

[HSTEd]

And the Stadler solution has the same problem as sticking a locomotive on, takes up platform space ( worse given it can't hang off the end ).

It's not got anything like the same problem, in that it can fit 1,920kW of diesel engines into 6.7m.
That's pretty much a Class 50, in a third of the length.

Especially as clever design of the door layout can gain you that much simply by allowing the front of the unit to overhang the platform.

 

[Energy]

and the bogies on the 195 require rotation as an input.

Don't the 331s have bogie mounted motors? Even if you changed the 195s engine to a motor they would still be very different underneath.

 

[Greybeard33]

Yes, true, but that doesn't make it impossible to convert a DMU (mechanical) to a (battery) EMU.

Just because something is technically feasible does not mean it is economically sensible. Modifying an old vehicle can be much more difficult than designing a new one. To an engineer, alarm bells start ringing when a non-engineer says things like "But all you need to do is...." or "How hard can it be?"

The devil is in the detail. The Class 230 and 769 projects demonstrated some of the pitfalls in changing the mode of propulsion of a train. You may find that the parts of the original vehicle that you can reuse make up a relatively small proportion of the cost of the finished product, and/or severely compromise performance.

There is a reason why bus operators are buying new battery and hybrid buses, not modifying their diesel vehicles.

 

[Energy]

The Class 230 and 769 projects demonstrated some of the pitfalls in changing the mode of propulsion of a train.

The 230 only reuses the bodyshell, the seats (depends on configuration), the PIS housings (although the screen inside has changed) and the bogies (not including the motors). Everything else has changed. The 230s don't seem to have issues with changing the propulsion but with the engine cooling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a reason why bus operators are buying new battery and hybrid buses, not modifying their diesel vehicles.

And that reason is that buses are built for a far shorter working life, typically 10-15 years like a car tends to last, not 30-50 years like a train does. Trains are more like houses in that regard. You don't knock your house down and rebuild it just because you want to swap the gas boiler for a heat pump and improve the insulation.

 

[Energy]

And that reason is that buses are built for a far shorter working life, typically 10-12 years like a car tends to last, not 30-50 years like a train does. Trains are more like houses in that regard.

Changing the propulsion on a train is still difficult. Its trying to fit on stuff to a train which isn't really designed for having it fitted. Batteries aren't too difficult but an engine definitely is.

 

[Greybeard33]

The 230 only reuses the bodyshell, the seats (depends on configuration), the PIS housings (although the screen inside has changed) and the bogies (not including the motors). Everything else has changed. The 230s don't seem to have issues with changing the propulsion but with the engine cooling.

I suspect that a contributory factor to the engine cooling issues on the 230 was the space constraint of squeezing the generator rafts under the existing bodyshell. There have also been door issues, which I believe relate to modification of the original door mechanism.

I wonder how much more costly it would have been to fabricate new purpose designed bodyshells?

And that reason is that buses are built for a far shorter working life, typically 10-15 years like a car tends to last, not 30-50 years like a train does. Trains are more like houses in that regard. You don't knock your house down and rebuild it just because you want to swap the gas boiler for a heat pump and improve the insulation.

But that is a difference of degree not of kind. Even with houses, it is sometimes more economic to knock down and rebuild a house on a valuable plot rather than build a massive extension and retain only part of the shell of the original building.

Changing the propulsion on a train is still difficult. Its trying to fit on stuff to a train which isn't really designed for having it fitted. Batteries aren't too difficult but an engine definitely is.

Quite. Unless any of us on here are experienced rolling stock engineers, I do not see how we can judge the economics of retrofit versus replacement of a DMMU.

 

[Energy]

I suspect that a contributory factor to the engine cooling issues on the 230 was the space constraint of squeezing the generator rafts under the existing bodyshell.

Definitely, it is already a tight squeeze on a DEMU and the 230s have 18m cars.

But that is a difference of degree not of kind. Even with houses, it is sometimes more economic to knock down and rebuild a house on a valuable plot rather than build a massive extension and retain only part of the shell the original building.

Houses are a lot more difficult to take down, trains you can take to a scrapyard. This is also not swapping a boiler for a heat pump, changing a DMU to a DEMU is like changing the entire heating system and all the electricals. Changing a EMU to a DEMU is easier but is like squeezing in a secondary boiler (well several of them, engines and the stuff needed for them takes up a lot of space) into a house designed for one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

changing a DMU to a DEMU is like changing the entire heating system and all the electricals

Which is something people do with houses all the time!

 

[Energy]

Which is something people do with houses all the time!

Do they? Only if it is an old house they want to preserve.

I doubt any ROSCO is too interested in re engining following the 769s problems. The exception is the MTU 170 project but that is the changing of the engine raft in a train already designed around being a DMU.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do they? Only if it is an old house they want to preserve.

Yes. A new heating system and a re-wire are very common jobs when refurbishing a house that's getting on somewhat.