UK Version of Bombardier Traxx passenger loco ready for launch

[jonhewes]

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/traxx-uk-aimed-at-two-uk-franchises.html

UK: Bombardier is targetting Greater Anglia and InterCity East Coast as possible customers for a UK version of its successful Traxx electric locomotive family. According to Alberto Lacchini, Director, Sales, in Bombardier’s Locomotives Business Unit, ‘we are well advanced in the design and are ready to launch the product’.

Bombardier believes that the Traxx P200 AC UK Bo-Bo electric locomotive fitted with a ‘last mile’ diesel engine would offer ‘a lot of value for money’ for UK operators such as Greater Anglia. Whereas the MkIII coaches used on London – Norwich inter-city services are ‘excellent’ vehicles that may last for another 20 years, the Class 90 locomotives will need to be replaced before that.

Interesting news. I wonder whether or not this will end up getting ordered. Conceptually, it certainly has it's advantages over Class 90/91 locos on account of the last mile diesel engine facility.

Further more, do Mark III & IV coaches have much of a future within franchised rail operations, sufficiently so to warrant the construction of new locomotives?

Looks like loco haulage may be with us for longer than we thought :THUMBSUP:

 

[junglejames]

This is just what Bombardier say. Doesnt mean we are going down the avenue of building more passenger locos.
For this to be worthwhile, more passenger coaches will have to be built. Its no good ordering these locos if all they will do is see out the last years of the Mk3 or 4. The 90s and 91s can do that. The 90s can carry on as long as the Mk3s if necessary.

 

[4SRKT]

At least it looks like a proper loco, rather than a class 70, which looks like a class 58 as imagined by a Pixar artist who's never actually seen a train and has snorted far too much coke before coming to work that morning.

 

[jopsuk]

surely a "last mile" diesel would be of most use to freight operators- say on Intermodal trains (wires don't mix with picking containers off trains) or on coal Merry Go Round operations (can't top load the hopper if there's wires in the way)? If it can only short distances, slowly, I really see little use an auxiliary diesel engine- most of the "diesel under the wires" services that run away from the wires go rather more than a few miles beyond the sparks.

 

[jonhewes]

Surely Bombardier wouldn't be pushing R&D into the design of such a loco if they didn't believe there was a market for it.

The "Last-Mile" concept could be of use within both passenger and freight sectors. The farces of dewirement/OHL issues stranding passenger trains on the ECML/GEML and rendering them devoid of ETS for aircon etc would be a thing of the past.

The "Last Mile" function would mean that in the event of OHL issues, MKIII/MKIV sets could continue receiving ETS while moving slowly to the next station, or to a point where the OHL was working.

With the likely disbanding of HST sets over the next 5 years, with some investment, we could potentially have a big fleet of newly overhauled MKIIIs (with power doors etc) on our hands too.

 

[Yew]

With the likely disbanding of HST sets over the next 5 years, with some investment, we could potentially have a big fleet of newly overhauled MKIIIs (with power doors etc) on our hands too.

I thought HST's where planned to operate till 2035? If not why are EMT re-engining theirs, instead of doing a proper overhaul on their Sprinter fleeT?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, its not as good looking as a HST, Looks like they want somthing that could be at home infront of a trundling freight train, or a high speed passnaager service

 

[Pumbaa]

I'm interested to know why its Bo-Bo and not Co-Co though. Surely they'd know the 67s are hugely limited by this arrangement already and would just be shooting themselves in the foot with it?

 

[Lampshade]

I'm interested to know why its Bo-Bo and not Co-Co though. Surely they'd know the 67s are hugely limited by this arrangement already and would just be shooting themselves in the foot with it?

Brush own the rights to the only Co-Co 125mph bogies and they wanted something ludicrous like £2m a set for them when the 67s were being built, it's either pay Brush or pay more designing their own

 

[jonhewes]

I'm interested to know why its Bo-Bo and not Co-Co though. Surely they'd know the 67s are hugely limited by this arrangement already and would just be shooting themselves in the foot with it?

It's worth remembering that the loco they're proposing will essentially be an electric loco with a small diesel gen set and fuel tank for short distance/emergency working.

In theory iwith advances in loco design and technology, it should be possible to build one of these locos without making it much (if any) heavier than the class 90 or 91

 

[Skimble19]

Interesting have the Traxx will remove bogies from the MK3s and put them on skates...

 

[jonhewes]

Interesting have the Traxx will remove bogies from the MK3s and put them on skates...

Could we have that in English please?

 

[tbtc]

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't carrying around a diesel tank for "last mile" use basically the same as was proposed for IEP (which everyone was against)?

Is this just a manufacturer who have found a positive spin?

As for the GEML, I think the future there is EMUs. As I understood it the 90s are limited by platform length at Liverpool Street. There's therefore no way of extending them, unless you remove the space taken up by a loco at one end and a DVT at the other. An EMU would allow for the trains to be a couple of coaches longer.

No mention of the MML though?

 

[Nym]

No, it's nothing like the IEP, that was carrying diesel for off route, and not as a locomotive, as part of a rake of an EMU. Very diferent.

 

[4SRKT]

Is it just a modern electro-diesel then? Hardly a new idea.

 

[MCR247]

I thought HST's where planned to operate till 2035? If not why are EMT re-engining theirs, instead of doing a proper overhaul on their Sprinter fleeT?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, its not as good looking as a HST, Looks like they want somthing that could be at home infront of a trundling freight train, or a high speed passnaager service

EMT aren't re engining their 43s

 

[WestCoast]

I am hopeful - I don't want to see Multiple Units take over the whole of the UK! They are not always the answer for long-distance services, and the flexibility of the possible set formation that a dual powered push-pull train brings could be realised.

My personal opinion is that MUs are very appropriate for sub-100mph workings, but over that a push-pull set can be advantageous in certain circumstances.

 

[starrymarkb]

Could we have that in English please?

I think he is refering to the dodgy artists impression where someone has over-scaled the coaches to be without bogies.

Siemens are apparently working on a Vectron UK aswell
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, its not as good looking as a HST, Looks like they want somthing that could be at home infront of a trundling freight train, or a high speed passnaager service

They are touting it as a 90/91 replacement rather then HST replacement. Plus the TRAXX is very standardised, the bodyshell is identical for Diesel and electric on the continent, even down to the fuel caps

 

[Skimble19]

Could we have that in English please?

Normally I'd reply fairly sarcastically to that as there are too many people thinking this is a forum for people who got A* in English at the moment, but I'll let you off this time - having read it, it made no sense whatsoever.

Basically what I was attempting to say was that the Traxx has somehow managed to remove the bogies from the MK3s it's pulling.. (you'll need to click through to the article and look at the photo in large to get what I mean!).

I think he is refering to the dodgy artists impression where someone has over-scaled the coaches to be without bogies.

Certainly was!

 

[jopsuk]

at 82 tonnes, they would be much lighter than a 67, lighter than a 90 and about the same as a 91

 

[Aictos]

Is it just a modern electro-diesel then? Hardly a new idea.

It would just be a more powerful AC version of a Class 73 although slightly better looking, :P

 

[sprinterguy]

I thought HST's where planned to operate till 2035?

The HSTs have been assessed as structurally capable of lasting until 2035, which doesn't mean that they necessarily will. That's down to future rolling stock procurement policies with the operators who run HSTs.

I have to say that the mark 3s look fantastic in an almost carmine and cream livery, but as others have said, where on earth are the wheels? Is their nobody working for these massive multinational companies who checks these things on their promotional material before it is released to the world?

It would be absolutely fantastic to see Bombardier Traxx and Siemens Vectron locos in the UK: They're superb designs and at the moment I've got to consider forays into mainland Europe to experience them. The promise of a new class of locomotives over here certainly is a tantalising one, especially a design that has already seen so much success on the continent.

However, I can't see that there is a market for them over here. The class 90s are only 25 years old, so not exactly ageing and they could have another fifteen years of life ahead of them if looked after well. The 91s were built at the same time as the mark 4 carriages, so it stands to reason that they would be withdrawn at the same time as complete sets. And on the freight front, the electric fleet is already underutilised: There are plenty of 90s and 92s standing out of use that should be returned to service first if the demand for freight transport requires it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, it's nothing like the IEP, that was carrying diesel for off route, and not as a locomotive, as part of a rake of an EMU. Very diferent.

No, the all-electric IEP train is intended to have an emergency diesel generator offering "limp home" capability, unlike the bi-mode trains which will have a greater number of diesel power units to facilitate running away from the wires. So very much the same idea, except for it being loco versus multiple unit, and I once again can't really see the need, although with fewer and fewer diesel locomotives around to rescue stranded electric trains there is starting to be a requirement for such a feature.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't carrying around a diesel tank for "last mile" use basically the same as was proposed for IEP (which everyone was against)?

Is this just a manufacturer who have found a positive spin?

As for the GEML, I think the future there is EMUs. As I understood it the 90s are limited by platform length at Liverpool Street. There's therefore no way of extending them, unless you remove the space taken up by a loco at one end and a DVT at the other. An EMU would allow for the trains to be a couple of coaches longer.

On GEML, even if the platforms are too short at Liverpool Street you can add capacity by replacing the DVT with a passenger carrying DVT.

No, it's nothing like the IEP, that was carrying diesel for off route, and not as a locomotive, as part of a rake of an EMU. Very diferent.

The 'last mile' diesel engine, is it capable of much speed or just providing ECS and moving along at about 30mph - 50mph? If the former, than most of my complaints about IEP bi-mode still apply to it. It is better than IEP bi-mode solely in the flexibility of train formation you get with LHCS and in that passengers don't have noisy underfloor engines to contend with. In the latter case, it is not much like the IEP bi-mode and is similar to the IEP 'electric' which is not so complained about quite so much. I still think the extra weight of the engine for emergency use will add too much to the power consuption though, both in the case of IEP and this locomotive.

at 82 tonnes, they would be much lighter than a 67, lighter than a 90 and about the same as a 91

And if they removed the diesel engine, it'd be how much lighter than a 91? Same argument I have against the 'electric' version of IEP.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Brush own the rights to the only Co-Co 125mph bogies and they wanted something ludicrous like £2m a set for them when the 67s were being built, it's either pay Brush or pay more designing their own

Where have Brush supplied 125 mph Co-Co bogies? If nowhere, then this is surely not a proven design and whoever needs a Co-Co high speed bogie might as well start from scratch.

It's slightly worrying that the graphic designers in Bombardier think that we have low level (UIC) platforms in the UK... or is this a mainland Europe visual that somebody decided to badge up with "UK"?

 

[4SRKT]

Where have Brush supplied 125 mph Co-Co bogies? If nowhere, then this is surely not a proven design and whoever needs a Co-Co high speed bogie might as well start from scratch.

Class 89 I suppose, so not a lot of track record really.

 

[Voyager 2093]

Does anyone not think that Chiltern should be allocated some HSTs? Or am I thinking way over the margin...

 

[Yew]

EMT aren't re engining their 43s

East Midlands Trains has stated that it will replace Paxman VP185 engines in all powercars before the end of its franchise. They have completed their ambition since, though the re-engined power cars retained their original numbers

Sorry, they have recently completed re-engining

Could these be a possibliity to replace HST;s on the MML or wouldnt that range be sufficient? I could see them being useful for the Lincoln => KGX service with only a few unelectrified miles with a 60mph speed limit anyway

It does ask the question of that to do with the displaced locos? If we had some spare carriages they could be useful on mid-distance services (extra capacity for XC if HST;s get displaced, so they cna double voyagers up, or on longer routes that might use 158's ( maybe a 4/5 car hst could be used instead of a sprinter on routes like Nottingham => Liverpool. Of course if its electric units dispaced, then substitute apropriate routes in)

 

[sprinterguy]

Does anyone not think that Chiltern should be allocated some HSTs? Or am I thinking way over the margin...

Definitely not. The routes operated by Chiltern are too short, there’d be no opportunity for running at over 100mph as it would interfere with the existing 168 paths and the stops are far too frequent on even the most limited stop services to suggest HST operation. Barring use on the Lymington branch, Chiltern would be one of the most unsuitable places you could put HSTs.

You can also throw into the mix the fact that there won’t be any HSTs going spare for about five years at the earliest!

 

[tbtc]

Barring use on the Lymington branch...

(I'm surprised nobody has suggested an HST on the branch, to free up a 158 )
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, the all-electric IEP train is intended to have an emergency diesel generator offering "limp home" capability, unlike the bi-mode trains which will have a greater number of diesel power units to facilitate running away from the wires. So very much the same idea, except for it being loco versus multiple unit, and I once again can't really see the need, although with fewer and fewer diesel locomotives around to rescue stranded electric trains there is starting to be a requirement for such a feature.

Cheers, it did sound similar (albeit, as you say, with the technology confined to the engine and not spread across the coaches).

 

[sprinterguy]

(I'm surprised nobody has suggested an HST on the branch, to free up a 158 )

Make it long enough and it wouldn’t even have to move. People could just walk through from end to end from one station to the other. The fuel savings would be enormous, and SWT could advertise it as a completely “carbon neutral” train service.

 

[tbtc]

Make it long enough and it wouldn’t even have to move. People could just walk through from end to end from one station to the other. The fuel savings would be enormous, and SWT could advertise it as a completely “carbon neutral” train service.

Give this man a job at the DFT!