The MTU PowerPack with Tri-mode potential is something that may be the answer in a new build of units:- http://www.railmagazine.com/news/ne...-powerpack-with-tri-mode-potential/image/6531
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What Rolling Stock would you propose for the Northern ITT
- Thread starter 47802
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,461
No it won't, they use the same power pack. The Class 800 will not use the full power output in regular service. Whereas the AT300 needs full power to keep to time on their proposed route.
That's the problem, you don't. Tilt is necessary to make use of the full 125mph linespeed on WCML, it's been said already but you completely ignored it:
Would hope they'll be willing to scale it down to our loading gauge if it proves successful in Germany.
Last edited:
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
I suggest you read my previous updated post about the power output, as you are totally incorrect.
Also, it has been proved in the past that to run 125mph trains that do not tilt is actually not that much quicker than trains that tilt even on the WCML.
Last edited:
156s are guaranteed to return to Northern. TPE are only loaning 6 x 156s on a daily basis - they don't even get the same 156s every day.
There's no guarantees with the 350/4s. They were ordered for TPE as part of the same order as the 350/3s for LM and because of that some people wrongly think they are subleased from LM or that there is an agreement in place for them to go to LM in the future, which isn't the case. There's an option for them to go to LM in the future but then there's an option for them to go to Northern for their Regional Express routes and there could be other options under consideration which we don't know about.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,461
The Wikipedia quote is inaccurate, the AT300 will definitely use the same power pack but with enhanced fuel tanks to balance the full power output.
It doesn't matter whether or not they're quicker or slower; for many sections on the WCML, use of the enhanced linespeed is only authorised when tilt is functional, that's the way it is.
Last edited:
Do you have any evidence of that?
Services which transferred from Virgin to TPE were only timed for 110mph running under Virgin (so non-tilting 220s could be used) and they were still slightly slower after transferring to TPE despite TPE significantly reducing dwell times at stations.
43074
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,017
The AT300s for South West services will use the same power packs as the IEPs, but on the IEPs they are de-rated (according to the previous issue of Modern Railways).
There have been concerns over the proposed HS2 services losing too much time on the Northern section of the WCML as they will not be able to match the timings of tilting West Coast services.
There have been concerns over the proposed HS2 services losing too much time on the Northern section of the WCML as they will not be able to match the timings of tilting West Coast services.
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
Really then why does both Rial and Modern Railway magazines mention the same that the power output will be greater on the AT300's than on the 800's?
If you look at the Hitachi Trains website as I have done, it also states the same comment about the power output.
Last edited:
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,461
The Class 800 will not need full power in normal service, therefore the engines are de-rated to ease maintenance and fuel consumption. Whereas the AT300 will be set up to make use of the full power output from the same MTU power pack.
[43074 explains it above]
Last edited:
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
How much time is losing too much time?
I am trying find details I once found of a route in Germany which from the looks of it has just as many bends if not more so than the WCML, which has Siemens Velaro trains run on it. One of the Velaro's had problems with the tilt on the train one day, but was still able to arrive 5 minutes later than the arrival time it should have arrived.
Now if our railway system was Japanese I would agree that tilting was necessary to keep to train times, but since in this country trains are more often are late, what is 5 minutes?
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
The difference in running times is about 10 minutes Euston-Crewe, another 10 Crewe-Carlisle, and another 10 Carlisle to Glasgow.
So about 30 minutes overall.
It's 10 minutes difference Euston-Birmingham and 15 Euston-Stoke-Manchester.
There are still some sections not cleared for tilt (notably Warrington-Wigan and north of Carstairs).
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
Well, you go to any main line station in the rush period in the morning whether it is at any of the main stations in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Reading, Cardiff or anywhere in the country where you will see that 4 out of 6 trains are anything from 2 to 10 minutes late.
In Japan, the train crew are given penalties if the train is 2 seconds late and are rewarded if the train arrives early.
You ask any TOC in this country and there will give you an answer that basically states that they only take people from A to b, they do not care if you do not get a seat and do not care really that much if the train is late as all you have done is paid to travel from a to b.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,461
May I direct your attention to the Amagasaki derailment of 2005 as an example of consequence. Obviously this is a worst-case scenario and it was an awful incident by some stretch, but customs on Japan's railways are so different to those in the West and not often for the better.
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
Can I suggest that you stop taking my post too literally please?...
I was just stating a fact in my previous posts about Japanese railway systems and certainly not saying that it was any better or any worse than the railway system we have in this country. All I was stating is that TOC's could learn from the Japanese when it comes to time keeping possibly but in a safe manor for all concerned?
TheKnightWho
Established Member
I can't believe we have had several people on this forum seriously suggesting we just stop using the tilt on the WCML. Various reasons cited involve comfort and it apparently not mattering as it's not much quicker.
Well, we may as well have not bothered in the first place then. Tilting trains do not cost orders of magnitude extra to order.
Last edited:
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
For me it is actually safety due to accidents like the accident where the train went round the corner at too fast a speed that happened in Spain (http://world.time.com/2013/07/25/watch-moment-of-impact-as-high-speed-train-derails/) and the accident at Grayrigg.
With tilt drivers could potentially go round a corner at too fast a speed and loose control, such putting the passengers lives in more risk.
It is not at all about the money for the use of tilting as I have been on a Pendolino a few times when tilt has been used and even though I felt safe, you have to take into consideration that not everyone feels that way.
I have also seen many road accidents over the last 20 plus years when I have been driving where people have accidents for being too much in a rush to get from a to b, rather than travelling just for the enjoyment.
But this is just my own personal view.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
There appears to be some confusion about the Northern ITT and the separate TransPennine ITT.
Firstly, the Northern ITT
5.4.2.2 of the franchise specifically states that bidders will be required to procure and bring into service a minimum of 120 carriages by 1 January 2020.
That's individual carriages, not units/trainsets. It will be up to the bidder in consultation with DfT and leasor to agree on how to form these carriages, whether they want to order just the minimum of 120 carriages or whether a larger order makes more sense financially, perhaps in lieu of making some other units DDA compliant and/or early withdrawal of the oldest Sprinter units.
The industry expects the order to comprise of 60 x 2 car Class 172 units, fitted with the latest version of the MTU 6H1800R85 engine, the same gangway cab and BSI coupler that London Midland's examples feature, and continuing with the B5005 lightweight bogie and mechanical transmissions. That will allow the franchise to operate these new units in multiple with the existing Sprinter fleet, and to work with the Class 170 units that are expected to join the franchise from ScotRail.
There may be some limited opportunity to order the new units in a mixture of 2 and 4 car form, and to reform the ScotRail units into 2 and 4 car units.
IPEMUs (battery units) will be proposed by bidders and leasors, but the economics mean they're extremely unlikely to have a business case and are unlikely to feature in the franchise at this stage. They're expected to make more sense as replacements for older Sprinters in 10 years or so, when electrification has greater spread, and when the power to weight and life expectancy of battery packs improves, and the cost decreases.
Bi-mode units aren't likely to feature either, the engineering involved in fitting Euro IIIb diesel engines with their emissions control equipment under the floor of a 23m unit is already quite challenging and will likely require some loss of seating capacity in the passenger saloon to accommodate tanks for AdBlue and related equipment, just for straight diesel units using the current MTU 6H1800 engine.
Manufacturing a bi-mode unit can be done, but the costs involved are likely to make such an order challenging from a business case perspective, and there's likely to be penalties in terms of weight (hurting fuel consumption and track access charges) and further loss of passenger saloon space. The space issue and further loss of seating capacity in particular will make the economics of a bi-mode unit challenging.
For inward cascades, just to repeat (5.4.2.26) Class 442 units are banned, as are any Class 165, 166, 168, 180, 185, 220, 221 or 222 units. Cascaded stock can be Class 150, 153, 156, 158, 159, 170, 171, 172 or 175 units.
For TransPennine
The industry thinking here is that 125mph or 140mph capable electric units at 23m vehicle length should be proposed by bidders, though there's a great deal of disagreement about whether that should be intercity stock with end doors, or whether continuing with the interregional stock with 1/3 and 2/3 doors, as per the Class 185 units, will be the best approach.
Station dwell times are likely to be an issue for end door stock, but there's a desire within the Treasury to see the TransPennine route return to being regarded as an InterCity route with more prestigious rolling stock, as a means to reinforce the Chancellor's Northern Hub project. You should expect the new DMU stock to work in and around Manchester and/or Leeds for the same reason.
That and a good deal from Hitachi, could swing any order towards something from the AT300 family, possibly something in between a Class 395 and a Class 801, but it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, Bombardier, Siemens and perhaps Alstom tender.
Firstly, the Northern ITT
5.4.2.2 of the franchise specifically states that bidders will be required to procure and bring into service a minimum of 120 carriages by 1 January 2020.
That's individual carriages, not units/trainsets. It will be up to the bidder in consultation with DfT and leasor to agree on how to form these carriages, whether they want to order just the minimum of 120 carriages or whether a larger order makes more sense financially, perhaps in lieu of making some other units DDA compliant and/or early withdrawal of the oldest Sprinter units.
The industry expects the order to comprise of 60 x 2 car Class 172 units, fitted with the latest version of the MTU 6H1800R85 engine, the same gangway cab and BSI coupler that London Midland's examples feature, and continuing with the B5005 lightweight bogie and mechanical transmissions. That will allow the franchise to operate these new units in multiple with the existing Sprinter fleet, and to work with the Class 170 units that are expected to join the franchise from ScotRail.
There may be some limited opportunity to order the new units in a mixture of 2 and 4 car form, and to reform the ScotRail units into 2 and 4 car units.
IPEMUs (battery units) will be proposed by bidders and leasors, but the economics mean they're extremely unlikely to have a business case and are unlikely to feature in the franchise at this stage. They're expected to make more sense as replacements for older Sprinters in 10 years or so, when electrification has greater spread, and when the power to weight and life expectancy of battery packs improves, and the cost decreases.
Bi-mode units aren't likely to feature either, the engineering involved in fitting Euro IIIb diesel engines with their emissions control equipment under the floor of a 23m unit is already quite challenging and will likely require some loss of seating capacity in the passenger saloon to accommodate tanks for AdBlue and related equipment, just for straight diesel units using the current MTU 6H1800 engine.
Manufacturing a bi-mode unit can be done, but the costs involved are likely to make such an order challenging from a business case perspective, and there's likely to be penalties in terms of weight (hurting fuel consumption and track access charges) and further loss of passenger saloon space. The space issue and further loss of seating capacity in particular will make the economics of a bi-mode unit challenging.
For inward cascades, just to repeat (5.4.2.26) Class 442 units are banned, as are any Class 165, 166, 168, 180, 185, 220, 221 or 222 units. Cascaded stock can be Class 150, 153, 156, 158, 159, 170, 171, 172 or 175 units.
For TransPennine
The industry thinking here is that 125mph or 140mph capable electric units at 23m vehicle length should be proposed by bidders, though there's a great deal of disagreement about whether that should be intercity stock with end doors, or whether continuing with the interregional stock with 1/3 and 2/3 doors, as per the Class 185 units, will be the best approach.
Station dwell times are likely to be an issue for end door stock, but there's a desire within the Treasury to see the TransPennine route return to being regarded as an InterCity route with more prestigious rolling stock, as a means to reinforce the Chancellor's Northern Hub project. You should expect the new DMU stock to work in and around Manchester and/or Leeds for the same reason.
That and a good deal from Hitachi, could swing any order towards something from the AT300 family, possibly something in between a Class 395 and a Class 801, but it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, Bombardier, Siemens and perhaps Alstom tender.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
Tilt is only enabled by the TASS beacons on the track, which also tell the train what the speed limit is. It's not just a matter of the driver telling the train how fast to drive and then it works out how much it needs to tilt as a result. Tilt isn't enabled everywhere because there are some places on the WCML where it wouldn't be safe to tilt at all or as much because of how close the track is to the other tracks or other structures.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I don't think we should stop using it on existing rolling stock, but I do think it is possibly questionable as to whether new stock should have it, as passenger comfort can be improved by not having it (as you don't need a tilt profile). It is quite possible that higher acceleration can deliver the same performance - 350s only lose a couple of minutes between MKC and EUS over Pendolinos (northbound 350s take 32 minutes, Pendolinos take 30); if they were 125mph with the same high acceleration it's quite possible they'd lose nothing.
If we'd known that PUG2 would never have occurred, and the Pendolinos would be topping out at 125mph for years to come, perhaps a less expensive, more suitable 125mph unit may have been selected instead? Tilt was really to come into its own at 140mph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A train can be driven too fast without tilt as well. And Grayrigg was not caused by overspeed, it was caused by faulty points, and the Pendolino performed admirably - in a high-speed derailment with vehicles flying down the embankment, just one person was killed, and it was an elderly person who may possibly even have died if they had fallen in the street.
I think the concern is misplaced.
And with that one sentence you've lost what credibility you had in this discussion.
I don't know what the current position is, but when HS2 phase 1 was first approved in 2012 the documents stated that north of Lichfield classic compatible sets would lose an estimated 11 minutes to Glasgow compared with a Pendolino. However, they had identified limited adjustments to the WCML infrastructure that could bring that down to 4 minutes. These adjustments to the WCML infrastructure were included in the cost for HS2.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
Driving a train is not like driving a car.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
The SRA once said that they had investigated 125mph running on the WCML without tilt, and that more sections could be passed than they thought.
They said they would get NR to investigate further, but like a lot of SRA promises in its last year or two, it vanished without trace.
There is no doubt that many locations on the WCML can only be negotiated at 110mph+ with tilt (Berkhamsted, Linslade, Wolverton, Weedon, Rugby and the rest).
But there are others where you wonder quite why the non-tilt limit is as low as 110mph (eg Linslade-Wolverton, Crewe-Weaver Jn or Standish-Euxton).
Then there are locations like Kilsby Tunnel which are limited to 110mph anyway because of pressure pulses at higher speeds.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
I agree with the above statement but feel it should be added that there would have almost certainly have been more deaths had that been Mark III Rolling Stock instead of the Pendolino.
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
It is not about credibility, it is about both me and others understanding that trains are safe. However, more safety could be put into them.
It is also not necessary as further posts have proven for there to be tilt on trains on the WCML doing up to 125mph.
I know that driving a train is not like driving a car, as I have actually driven a class 25 diesel loco and also class 108 diesel multiple unit before, but it was a good few years ago.
Last edited:
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,461
To reconsider your punctuation might be helpful, I almost read it as if you were contradicting yourself :roll:
There's always improvements to be made. That's the name of the game.
Not to mention you've contradicted our postings yet again, tilting trains are necessary to achieve the enhanced line speed. Why else was the investment made?
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
Well, it is late at night so sorry about the punctuation....
Yes, it is the name of the game to always improve safety.
Greybeard33
Established Member
Welcome to the forum Philip, and thank you for your on-topic, and clearly well-informed, post.
Hopefully many more to follow in the future!
There's some additional caveats on inward cascades.
They must be trains TOCs see as surplus to requirements, they can't just propose taking on the ATW 175s once the current ATW franchise ends. That likely leaves some 156s, 158s and 170s from Scotrail, 150/1s and 153s from FGW and the LO 172s.
Also there's an option for some 185s to be subleased to Northern initially to cover the some of the services that will transfer from TPE to Northern.
- Status