What are your first impressions of the new TGV-M.

[superalbs]

Bit of an ugly duckling I thnk. Maybe it will look better when the livery is applied.

Safe to say it does not...


(picture of liveried version from article linked earlier)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably making the livery on the power car either match that on the coaches or be completely different like a traditional loco was too much effort.

Goodness me, that thing is absolutely monstrous. TGV Duplex looks far better. Mind you of late Alstom do have a thing about producing monstrously ugly trains, the Dutch ICNG is particularly ugly, though I do wonder if the dog-like cab end is a deliberate nod to the old Hondekop (dog head) EMUs.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Goodness me, that thing is absolutely monstrous. TGV Duplex looks far better.

...and the original TGV front end design looks much better than either ( whether in Orange or blue and silver ).

 

[Snow1964]

...and the original TGV front end design looks much better than either ( whether in Orange or blue and silver ).

The designer of first generation TGV, Jacques Cooper died a fortnight ago (he was 93)

Jacques Cooper said his train design was inspired by the nose of the Porsche 914-6 limited-edition sports car model that he had designed for the German manufacturer a decade earlier. The Porsche was orange, which also became the trademark colour of the new fast trains.

The 5th generation have much shorter end cars, so that more seats fit in the 200m length. The first generation had about third of adjacent vehicle effectively as part of the power car.

 

[DanielB]

the Dutch ICNG is particularly ugly, though I do wonder if the dog-like cab end is a deliberate nod to the old Hondekop (dog head) EMUs.

It isn't, although they did stick to animal nicknames: ICNG is having "Wasp" as nickname.
It's the livery that doesn't work well with the shape, the Flow livery of the Belgium capable sets already looks much better.

 

[AdamWW]

Not sure why you have the loco hang up as the RailJets are fixed formation trains that you can easily couple together.

That was the point wasn't it? That as they run in fixed formations they could just well have been EMUs?

I thought the reason for using locomotives was that they already had them and didn't want them to go to waste.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It isn't, although they did stick to animal nicknames: ICNG is having "Wasp" as nickname.
It's the livery that doesn't work well with the shape, the Flow livery of the Belgium capable sets already looks much better.

Flow certainly looks nicer - to be fair I don't like the sweep-up on the LNER Azuma livery either, it looks a bit clumsy to me, I'd have made the whole window band wider to avoid the need for it.

That was the point wasn't it? That as they run in fixed formations they could just well have been EMUs?

I thought the reason for using locomotives was that they already had them and didn't want them to go to waste.

Yes, precisely. If you are building a brand-new fixed-formation electric train, there's really very little reason for it not to be an EMU and lots of advantages e.g. distributed traction and not wasting platform space on locomotives/power cars.

OK, double deck does throw in some challenges there, but there are plenty of double deck EMUs out there.

 

[Sorcerer]

I am not particularly big on the new livery to be honest. Lot less inspiring than the original artist impression. But not only that, does anyone else feel like a train of that shape is harder to apply a livery to without it looking somewhat jarring or unusual? The old single-deck TGV models (Sud-Est, Reseau etc.) had defined corners and edges, so a black front is much easier to apply than it is here where the nose has been curved out more. The bottom part doesn't look too bad but the cab area just looks strange by comparison. The ETR 675 has a similar issue but that's nowhere near as bad since it still blends relatively well with the rest of the Italo livery.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am not particularly big on the new livery to be honest. Lot less inspiring than the original artist impression. But not only that, does anyone else feel like a train of that shape is harder to apply a livery to without it looking somewhat jarring or unusual? The old single-deck TGV models (Sud-Est, Reseau etc.) had defined corners and edges, so a black front is much easier to apply than it is here where the nose has been curved out more. The bottom part doesn't look too bad but the cab area just looks strange by comparison. The ETR 675 has a similar issue but that's nowhere near as bad since it still blends relatively well with the rest of the Italo livery.

To me it looks really clumsy, a bit like grafting a Pendolino's snout onto an HST power car then connecting it to some Mk2 coaches.

 

[Snow1964]

That was the point wasn't it? That as they run in fixed formations they could just well have been EMUs?

I thought the reason for using locomotives was that they already had them and didn't want them to go to waste.

Yes, and they intended to have night trains which would remain loco hauled. If don't have any loco hauled (day trains) then locos would be idle during the day. Much the same way as 92s didn't get utilised fully as intended.

I guess TGM-M retains power cars because it is not practical to fit a multi-system transformer of power required under the floor of a double deck vehicle. Each 200m set is rated at 8MW (10,800HP).

For comparison a 264m long 11car class 390 is only 5.95MW (8000HP) and single voltage, so much less power, and with space under floors.

 

[AdamWW]

Yes, and they intended to have night trains which would remain loco hauled. If don't have any loco hauled (day trains) then locos would be idle during the day. Much the same way as 92s didn't get utilised fully as intended.

I believe that was the logic for 91's+Mk4s rather than an APT-like unit train.

The railway decided that it couldn't afford to have power cars sitting around doing nothing at night whereas the 91s would be pulling sleeper trains and freight.

 

[bahnause]

To be fair the European railway has a very dated approach to rolling stock in a lot of cases. The Railjet sets for example are nice, but there's really very little case not to have built fixed-formation sets like those (they're similar to the ex-TPE Mk5s) as electric multiple units. The Southern worked that out years ago and were basically right, and even traditional loco-operated railways like SBB are very much moving to EMUs.

The advantages of multiple units and locomotive-hauled trains differ depending on the area of application. In terms of cost, for example, a locomotive-hauled double-decker push-pull train with a capacity of more than 4-6 carriages is the most favourable option for long-distance services in Switzerland. Another advantage is the possibility of swapping out the locomotive for maintenance. Requirements such as low axle loads or high acceleration capacity can of course rule out locomotive-hauled trains.
In Austria, railjets were (are?) regularly strengthened with additional carriages, a very cost-effective option for flexible capacity adjustments. Not unlike the Swiss concept of using modules to match supply and demand.

A future SBB order might as well be a loco hauled push-pull set.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The advantages of multiple units and locomotive-hauled trains differ depending on the area of application. In terms of cost, for example, a locomotive-hauled double-decker push-pull train with a capacity of more than 4-6 carriages is the most favourable option for long-distance services in Switzerland.

Is it? SBB seem to have gone over to solely ordering MUs.

 

[bahnause]

Is it? SBB seem to have gone over to solely ordering MUs.

The last tenders did not allow any locomotive-hauled trains to be offered, but for technical and not operational reasons. Twindexx and Giruno due to the limited axle loads, the 60 Stadler IRD were from an option of a former contract to have a compatible fleet. However, the next replacement will probably involve the replacement of the EWIV / Bpm fleet. These are currently used in various train lengths and are often strengthened / shortened during the day. The invitation to tender will therefore probably not specify the train type. And as a publicly owned operator, SBB will have to order the best offer based on the catalogue of requirements and will have no choice.

The Stadler offer for the SBB doubledecker looked very much like a TGV with power cars at the end.

 

[superalbs]

The last tenders did not allow any locomotive-hauled trains to be offered, but for technical and not operational reasons. Twindexx and Giruno due to the limited axle loads, the 60 Stadler IRD were from an option of a former contract to have a compatible fleet. However, the next replacement will probably involve the replacement of the EWIV / Bpm fleet. These are currently used in various train lengths and are often strengthened / shortened during the day. The invitation to tender will therefore probably not specify the train type. And as a publicly owned operator, SBB will have to order the best offer based on the catalogue of requirements and will have no choice.

The Stadler offer for the SBB doubledecker looked very much like a TGV with power cars at the end.

Any pictures of this? Sounds interesting.

 

[AdamWW]

The last tenders did not allow any locomotive-hauled trains to be offered, but for technical and not operational reasons. Twindexx and Giruno due to the limited axle loads, the 60 Stadler IRD were from an option of a former contract to have a compatible fleet. However, the next replacement will probably involve the replacement of the EWIV / Bpm fleet. These are currently used in various train lengths and are often strengthened / shortened during the day. The invitation to tender will therefore probably not specify the train type. And as a publicly owned operator, SBB will have to order the best offer based on the catalogue of requirements and will have no choice.

But they get to choose the requirements so surely if there is a good reason to specify loco hauled trains they could do so?

 

[bahnause]

Any pictures of this? Sounds interesting.

Unfortunately I can't find one. The end card had limited seating in the upper deck, but the whole lower section was used as space for traction equipment.

But they get to choose the requirements so surely if there is a good reason to specify loco hauled trains they could do so?

They could, but it would limit the options. If someone comes up with a workable concept that meets the requirements, SBB would be happy with EMUs too. Maybe a mix between EMUs and unpowered or powerded modules for peak times?

 

[superalbs]

Unfortunately I can't find one. The end card had limited seating in the upper deck, but the whole lower section was used as space for traction equipment.

They could, but it would limit the options. If someone comes up with a workable concept that meets the requirements, SBB would be happy with EMUs too. Maybe a mix between EMUs and unpowered or powerded modules for peak times?

Much like the Dutch DDZ units then.

 

[MarcVD]

Much like the Dutch DDZ units then.

Or, to take a more recent example, the SNCB M7 rolling stock. Double deck, motor car 3/25 kV, 3MW continuous output power, 200 km/h. Can haul up to 5 M7 trailers (that can also be used as regular car in any train) or any other type of car provided it is equipped with the standard UIC transmission line. Compatible with M6 or M7 driving trailers, as well as 18 and 19 series locomotives. But those 3MW need some space, so the motor car can only accommodate some 50 seated passengers.

I do not think that we already have the technology to make power units compact enough to fit under the foot of a double deck high speed train, even with distributed traction. You need some 10MW to accelerate such a train to 300 km/h...

 

[superalbs]

Or, to take a more recent example, the SNCB M7 rolling stock. Double deck, motor car 3/25 kV, 3MW continuous output power, 200 km/h. Can haul up to 5 M7 trailers (that can also be used as regular car in any train) or any other type of car provided it is equipped with the standard UIC transmission line. Compatible with M6 or M7 driving trailers, as well as 18 and 19 series locomotives. But those 3MW need some space, so the motor car can only accommodate some 50 seated passengers.

I do not think that we already have the technology to make power units compact enough to fit under the foot of a double deck high speed train, even with distributed traction. You need some 10MW to accelerate such a train to 300 km/h...

Japan managed, and China has one on the way.

 

[MarcVD]

Japan managed, and China has one on the way.

You mean the E4 ? First Japan shinkansen lines seem to have a larger loading gauge than continental Europe, which certainly helps. And then they are limited to 240 km/h which is not considered high speed by UIC standard. And finally they were all retired after some 20 years of service, which does not represent a very successful career...

 

[superalbs]

You mean the E4 ? First Japan shinkansen lines seem to have a larger loading gauge than continental Europe, which certainly helps. And then they are limited to 240 km/h which is not considered high speed by UIC standard. And finally they were all retired after some 20 years of service, which does not represent a very successful career...

Most Japanese trains have a similar lifespan. I think you'd struggle to call Shinkansen unsuccessful.

 

[eldomtom2]

Most Japanese trains have a similar lifespan. I think you'd struggle to call Shinkansen unsuccessful.

While shinkansen do tend to have fairly short lives compared to conventional Japanese trains, the more relevant fact here is that there are no places for the acquisition of any more double-decker shinkansen.

 

[superalbs]

While shinkansen do tend to have fairly short lives compared to conventional Japanese trains, the more relevant fact here is that there are no places for the acquisition of any more double-decker shinkansen.

Very true, but it clearly can be done.

China is also working on their own.

 

[popeter45]

Very true, but it clearly can be done.

China is also working on their own.

the CRH3X?, as far as i know zero update on that project in 5 years

 

[Gostav]

While shinkansen do tend to have fairly short lives compared to conventional Japanese trains, the more relevant fact here is that there are no places for the acquisition of any more double-decker shinkansen.

The Shinkansen has always been committed to lightweight bodies and double-decker trains mean that it is contrary to the former intentions and also makes the power layout would be more complicated.

 

[MarkyT]

The Shinkansen has always been committed to lightweight bodies and double-decker trains mean that it is contrary to the former intentions and also makes the power layout would be more complicated.

I've read the double-deckers were a reaction to the massive property inflation that occurred a couple of decades ago, forcing Tokyo office workers to commute daily from further and further afield to be able to afford to live. The housing market is very different now and more people can afford to live closer to their employment, so the scale of long distance commuting has greatly reduced, the bi-levels are no longer required, and the railways would rather focus on faster, quicker loading single deckers.

 

[HSTEd]

While shinkansen do tend to have fairly short lives compared to conventional Japanese trains, the more relevant fact here is that there are no places for the acquisition of any more double-decker shinkansen.

JR East was always far more bullish on double deckers than the rest of JR and they've been suffering from declining passenger numbers for a while. Both due to declining population effects but also post coronavirus commuting changes, which finally finished off the last double deckers.

The only non JR East double decks I know of were a handful of trailer cars inserted into JR Central 0-series sets, and they obviously went a long time ago now.