Whats wrong with 'plastic'?

[Lewisham2221]

Right, as this whole thing has got into a bit of a bitchy mess, let me just clarify my position.

I do NOT hate/dislike old trains. If I did, I wouldn't enjoy visiting/volunteering at preserved railways. I simply think that, in terms of Mk1's etc, there time has come to be replaced because they aren't really suitable for today's modern, mainline railways. As for Mk3's, HST's etc on XC and WC, they were replaced for very different, and generally justified reasons.

Whether the replacements are suitable or not is a different question.

IMO, in the general, the newer trains bring about a better ambience and journey experience. In some cases this also includes shorter journey times due to increased speed and accellereation of new trains (although at the cost of efficiency?).

The debate about comfort can rage on and on forever, as this is down to purely personal opinion. Voyagers - suited to very long distance journeys? No. Suited to medium distance journeys that are (arguably?) the more common journeys made on XC? Yes. The main problem with the Voyagers is that they were needed to enable frequencies to be increased. This happened. (Un)fortunately, passenger numbers also increased dramatically. This sadly leads to overcrowding issues. Perhaps this will be sorted in due course? (waits for somebody to tell me to 'stop dreaming and get real'). Yes, it probably would have been better to refurbish some HST's for the longer journey's, but they weren't, so what's done is done (unfortunately).

Pendolino's. Again, these were needed to replace the Loco's and Mk3's to allow higher running speeds, tilting etc. Unreliable? Yes. Uncomfortable and poor ambience? Yes. Running at full speed? No, but that isn't the trains fault, and they are running faster than the trains they replaced. At least it was a try at making things better. It failed, but things can surely be learnt from this mistake.

So, to sum up:

Old trains good? Yes. (But not necassarily suitable for today's railways).
Old trains needed replacing? Yes. (But not all just because of age).
New trains good, suitable replacements? Debatable. In some cases yes, in some cases no.

This is clear from the number of people who have said that the old trains need replacing. I don't think anybody has come along and said that old trains are awful, just not suitable for today's railways. Whether the new trains are worthy replacements is debatable, but this shouldn't stop them from being popular and stop people from enjoying them.

Like it or not, the old trains have gone/are going, and the new trains are here. Whether that's good or not in your opinion doesn't really matter. Arguing about it won't change anything, they aren't going to un-scrap trains and use them to replace their replacements.

 

[yorkie]

... they aren't going to un-scrap trains ....

Chiltern have And SWT have (at least in terms of reversing the decision to scrap), and excellent choices they are too. Could be argued that ATW, Wessex etc have done too, thanks to ROSCOs such as FM Rail.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Some replacements have been good, for example Central Trains Class 170's which replaced the 158's on the Citylink routes allowing improved frequencys which replaced the 156's on some of the longer distance routes, which in turn replaced the 153's and 150's on some routes.

Same with Midland Mainline, their 170's allowed HST's to skip stops, and gave a 4 Train Per Hour every hour frequency, and the 170's have now been replaced by the 222's which have improved upon the 170's in most ways, although there are one or two windows that dont line up with Windows.

Then there is ScotRail who got 170's to supplement and supercede the 158's on the longer distant routes, which in turn did the same with the 156's, which have in turn replaced the 150's supplemented by the 170's, and the 334's have in turn allowed trains to be stregnthened in the Glasgow Area allowing more seats, and allowing older trains to be used on less diagrams and scrapped.

Then you've got Virgin West Coast who got the 390's for 140mph Running and Tilt, which meant that the Windows had to be smaller and fewer in number to allow the train to be crashworthy at 140mph, which meant the Passenger Saloon was in turn smaller, cramped, and rather dingy at all times.

The Pendolino would probably have been much more like a Class 180 had it been specified for 125mph running, only Virginified.

So some replacements have been good in that they've not exactly replaced trains, they've allowed them to be cascaded down to other operators allowing them to improve services whilst allowing passengers who have the new trains a better, more frequent and reliable service.

Whereas others which are unreliable have given improved journey times, but in many other aspects it hasnt been improved, though the overall company image has gotten better, oddly enough.

 

[Lewisham2221]

... they aren't going to un-scrap trains ....

Chiltern have And SWT have (at least in terms of reversing the decision to scrap), and excellent choices they are too. Could be argued that ATW, Wessex etc have done too, thanks to ROSCOs such as FM Rail.

Oh please! I hardly call Chiltern retaining a 121 and SWT keeping a couple of salmmer's as un-scrapping. Likewise for hiring/retaining a few loco's and Mk2 coaches.

 

[Guinness]

What are you suggesting then? We use old stock until each one crashes or becomes unserviceable? I think not some how....

Sorry but I cannot bring myself to answer that. I would laugh but no, it's too serious for that.

IMO What upgrades do the ECML Need (Except for the Some Bottlenecks along various points along the line)....

Sorry?

So whats your suggestion on replacing 50 Year Old Trains once they become unserviceable? You say you don't like new trains and yet I'm puzzled on what your idea of a Railway is :?

In a post made by you said all the Upgrade money had gone into the WCML instead of Vital Upgrades to the ECML - Again I'm puzzled as once again you have contradicted yourself...

 

[Guinness]

So you're blaming new trains for NR not charging enough for electricity?

That doesn't make sense! Where do you get that idea?

You moan about the new trains costing more to run. If the reason Pendolino's are costing more to run is because NR have had to raise charges for electricity because their charges were too low before, then you can't blaim the Pendolino. Unless I've just got confused somewhere, in which case I apologise.

Funny enough I read in an old edition of the Hotline Magazine that Pendolinos pump back in 5% of the Electricity used back into the system.

 

[yorkie]

Oh please! I hardly call Chiltern retaining a 121 and SWT keeping a couple of salmmer's as un-scrapping. Likewise for hiring/retaining a few loco's and Mk2 coaches.

How convenient!

So whats your suggestion on replacing 50 Year Old Trains once they become unserviceable?

Refurbish, upgrade. Look at the massive improvements carried out on 91s by GNER. Look at HSTs! I do not suggest letting trains become unserviceable at all.

You say you don't like new trains and yet I'm puzzled on what your idea of a Railway is :?

To answer that I'd have to write a very long essay. But, put simply, railways must remain economically viable or we'll lose them.

In a post made by you said all the Upgrade money had gone into the WCML instead of Vital Upgrades to the ECML - Again I'm puzzled as once again you have contradicted yourself...

How is that a contradiction? It is, sadly, the case that the financial crisis caused by the massive overspend on the WCML, Southern Power Upgrade, and many other examples of overspending (too numerous to list here), caused the cancellation of the ECML upgrades.

Funny enough I read in an old edition of the Hotline Magazine that Pendolinos pump back in 5% of the Electricity used back into the system.

But a 5% reduction of a much greater than 5% increase, is overall still an increase. I've not done a Pendo comparison (Roger Ford already has - read his article), but I've done an HST vs Voyager analysis as you shall see...

So we have more powerful trains. Although power increases are possible without becoming less efficient. That quote says nothing about efficency, just power increases.

I've now got an answer for this.

The original Valenta engine for an HST has a fuel consumpton rate of 221gm/kWh (Less for the newer engines), I do not have an exact number for a Voyager, however 210gm/kWh is typical for newer engines. So the Voyager is approximately 4 to 5% more fuel efficient than an HST.

So, let's compare Voyagers and HSTs, for power vs seats.

2x5 Car Super Voyager 5600kW 52F/4484S (11.2 kW per seat)
2x8 Car Voyager 4480kW 52F/324S (11.9 kW per seat)
2+7 HST 3360kW 48F/425S* (7.1kW per seat)

So the HST's engines are a little less efficient than the Voyagers (in terms of fuel per kWh), however the HSTs require only around two thirds of the amount of fuel.

The 5% greater efficiency of the Voyager engines is, in any case, wiped out by the fact that the trains are considerably heavier than HSTs.

2x5 Car Super Voyager 520 tons 52F/4484S (1.04 tons per seat)
2x8 Car Voyager 352 tons 52F/324S (0.94 tons per seat)
2+7 HST 364 tons 48F/425S* (0.77 tons per seat)

Sources used for the data: Roger Ford, Colin Marsden

I've put a lot of work into this post, spent about an hour researching it. If anyone disagrees you are welcome to do so but please put your own figures here and quote your sources.

* Approximate value for standard class.

 

[Guinness]

Yorkie you have to bare in mind that Voyagers need to generate a lot of Electricity for internal things like on-board Computers, Power Sockets etc. Not to mention the Diesel-Electric Motors.

 

[yorkie]

Yorkie you have to bare in mind that Voyagers need to generate a lot of Electricity for internal things like on-board Computers, Power Sockets etc. Not to mention the Diesel-Electric Motors.

Is this a serious post or is it designed to try to wind me up?

What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[Guinness]

Yorkie you have to bare in mind that Voyagers need to generate a lot of Electricity for internal things like on-board Computers, Power Sockets etc. Not to mention the Diesel-Electric Motors.

Is this a serious post or is it designed to try to wind me up?

What exactly are you trying to say?

Of course its a wind-up.... :roll:

Voyagers need to generate the extra electricity due the extra Gizmo's, Sensors, Power Sockets and the Electric Motors used in the Traction Equipment.

 

[yorkie]

Voyagers need to generate the extra electricity due the extra Gizmo's, Sensors, Power Sockets and the Electric Motors used in the Traction Equipment.

And your point is...?

I'm not being funny but I just can't understand the point you are trying to make.

I very much doubt power sockets for mobile phones, laptops etc is going to make any measurable difference to power consumption of a train weighing several hundred tons.

If your point is that power sockets are a good bonus for the passenger, then I agree but GNER's refurbished HSTs also have power sockets.

I'm not going to get into a debate about power usage of things like sensors . It's irrelevant and pointless. We'd be debating all century. Can we stick to the real issues please?

 

[Tom B]

Who cares about all the extras? I'd prefer a more comfortable train *without* the sockets, electric loo doors (for god's sake, I am able to open a door myself) etc.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Who cares about all the extras? I'd prefer a more comfortable train *without* the sockets, electric loo doors (for god's sake, I am able to open a door myself) etc.

People obviously DO care about the extras otherwise they wouldn't be included in so many new build's and train refurbs. As for the electric toilet doors, that would be the disabled toilets, provided for people who can't necassarily open the door themselves.

 

[yorkie]

Who cares about all the extras? I'd prefer a more comfortable train *without* the sockets, electric loo doors (for god's sake, I am able to open a door myself) etc.

People obviously DO care about the extras otherwise they wouldn't be included in so many new build's and train refurbs. As for the electric toilet doors, that would be the disabled toilets, provided for people who can't necassarily open the door themselves.

This is a needless argument though; GNER's refurbished trains (and these days you're unlucky if you get a non-refurb, and all will be re-furbished) have a sliding door disabled toilet and power sockets at each window seat (except, understandably, in the buffet car area).

 

[Lewisham2221]

Who cares about all the extras? I'd prefer a more comfortable train *without* the sockets, electric loo doors (for god's sake, I am able to open a door myself) etc.

People obviously DO care about the extras otherwise they wouldn't be included in so many new build's and train refurbs. As for the electric toilet doors, that would be the disabled toilets, provided for people who can't necassarily open the door themselves.

This is a needless argument though; GNER's refurbished trains (and these days you're unlucky if you get a non-refurb, and all will be re-furbished) have a sliding door disabled toilet and power sockets at each window seat (except, understandably, in the buffet car area).

I was just pointing it out, regardless of whether it's a refurb or new build train.

 

[Tom B]

Who cares about all the extras? I'd prefer a more comfortable train *without* the sockets, electric loo doors (for god's sake, I am able to open a door myself) etc.

People obviously DO care about the extras otherwise they wouldn't be included in so many new build's and train refurbs.

I think you'll find people would prefer a service that got people there comfortably on time rather than being unreliable but with frilly extras.

 

[bunnahabhain]

GNER's refurbished trains (and these days you're unlucky if you get a non-refurb, and all will be re-furbished)

It's now impossible to get a non-refurb, the last Non-Refurbished MK4 set went to Wakefield a few weeks ago, so the program should be complete in a few weeks.

 

[Guinness]

Can we stick to the real issues please?

I think every issue has been raised somehow.....

 

[Lewisham2221]

Can we stick to the real issues please?

I think every issue has been raised somehow.....

We seem to be going round in circles discussing pretty much every argument possible to argue over, several times over in some cases. Perhaps a time to put this thread to bed and move on?

 

[Guinness]

Can we stick to the real issues please?

I think every issue has been raised somehow.....

We seem to be going round in circles discussing pretty much every argument possible to argue over, several times over in some cases. Perhaps a time to put this thread to bed and move on?

I think that point came and went 3 or so pages ago

 

[yorkie]

GNER's refurbished trains (and these days you're unlucky if you get a non-refurb, and all will be re-furbished)

It's now impossible to get a non-refurb, the last Non-Refurbished MK4 set went to Wakefield a few weeks ago, so the program should be complete in a few weeks.

Some HSTs are non-refurb, but point taken about the Mk4s (and excellent news!)

 

[TheSlash]

Cheers to Chaz for reminding me of this.
All the new southern electric units run on 415 volts. This means they need more current for the motors, bigger cables, more heat, so then they need fans to cool them down.
With a DC unit, you require a high amount of power to begin with but as you pick up speed you require less and less power, where as an AC unit uses the same amount of power {still high} all the time {5 mph or 85mph} so the substation takes more of a hammering with AC units
Theres alot more can go wrong on new units in terms of all the computer systems, any fault on an older unit would be something physical thing and easily fixed once diagnoised, where as it might require a software upgrade on a new unit

 

[Bonnie Prince Charlie]

Oh please! I hardly call Chiltern retaining a 121 and SWT keeping a couple of salmmer's as un-scrapping. Likewise for hiring/retaining a few loco's and Mk2 coaches.

How convenient!

So whats your suggestion on replacing 50 Year Old Trains once they become unserviceable?

Refurbish, upgrade. Look at the massive improvements carried out on 91s by GNER. Look at HSTs! I do not suggest letting trains become unserviceable at all.

You say you don't like new trains and yet I'm puzzled on what your idea of a Railway is :?

To answer that I'd have to write a very long essay. But, put simply, railways must remain economically viable or we'll lose them.

In a post made by you said all the Upgrade money had gone into the WCML instead of Vital Upgrades to the ECML - Again I'm puzzled as once again you have contradicted yourself...

How is that a contradiction? It is, sadly, the case that the financial crisis caused by the massive overspend on the WCML, Southern Power Upgrade, and many other examples of overspending (too numerous to list here), caused the cancellation of the ECML upgrades.

Funny enough I read in an old edition of the Hotline Magazine that Pendolinos pump back in 5% of the Electricity used back into the system.

But a 5% reduction of a much greater than 5% increase, is overall still an increase. I've not done a Pendo comparison (Roger Ford already has - read his article), but I've done an HST vs Voyager analysis as you shall see...

So we have more powerful trains. Although power increases are possible without becoming less efficient. That quote says nothing about efficency, just power increases.

I've now got an answer for this.

The original Valenta engine for an HST has a fuel consumpton rate of 221gm/kWh (Less for the newer engines), I do not have an exact number for a Voyager, however 210gm/kWh is typical for newer engines. So the Voyager is approximately 4 to 5% more fuel efficient than an HST.

So, let's compare Voyagers and HSTs, for power vs seats.

2x5 Car Super Voyager 5600kW 52F/4484S (11.2 kW per seat)
2x8 Car Voyager 4480kW 52F/324S (11.9 kW per seat)
2+7 HST 3360kW 48F/425S* (7.1kW per seat)

So the HST's engines are a little less efficient than the Voyagers (in terms of fuel per kWh), however the HSTs require only around two thirds of the amount of fuel.

The 5% greater efficiency of the Voyager engines is, in any case, wiped out by the fact that the trains are considerably heavier than HSTs.

2x5 Car Super Voyager 520 tons 52F/4484S (1.04 tons per seat)
2x8 Car Voyager 352 tons 52F/324S (0.94 tons per seat)
2+7 HST 364 tons 48F/425S* (0.77 tons per seat)

Sources used for the data: Roger Ford, Colin Marsden

I've put a lot of work into this post, spent about an hour researching it. If anyone disagrees you are welcome to do so but please put your own figures here and quote your sources.

* Approximate value for standard class.

HST loses two engines its ****ed, while a Voyager loses 2 engines it can still run

 

[Bonnie Prince Charlie]

Who cares about all the extras? I'd prefer a more comfortable train *without* the sockets, electric loo doors (for god's sake, I am able to open a door myself) etc.

People obviously DO care about the extras otherwise they wouldn't be included in so many new build's and train refurbs. As for the electric toilet doors, that would be the disabled toilets, provided for people who can't necassarily open the door themselves.

This is a needless argument though; GNER's refurbished trains (and these days you're unlucky if you get a non-refurb, and all will be re-furbished) have a sliding door disabled toilet and power sockets at each window seat (except, understandably, in the buffet car area).

The disabled toliet doors are still power operated on GNER its only the cramped toilets where you need to slide them open

 

[Donny Dave]

In a post made by you said all the Upgrade money had gone into the WCML instead of Vital Upgrades to the ECML - Again I'm puzzled as once again you have contradicted yourself...

How is that a contradiction? It is, sadly, the case that the financial crisis caused by the massive overspend on the WCML, Southern Power Upgrade, and many other examples of overspending (too numerous to list here), caused the cancellation of the ECML upgrades.

To back Yorkie up...

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news.aspx?id=1310

That is an article about how Network Rail is having to cut some spending proposals.

 

[TheSlash]

A voyager loses 2 engines? So say its a 4 car, thats 50% power gone, out of service at the first available point
5 car is 40% power gone and still out of service at the first available point. An HST can easily couple to a BR loco which will be allowed to push or pull it far enough to clear the line, 1Z99

 

[Bonnie Prince Charlie]

A voyager loses 2 engines? So say its a 4 car, thats 50% power gone, out of service at the first available point
5 car is 40% power gone and still out of service at the first available point. An HST can easily couple to a BR loco which will be allowed to push or pull it far enough to clear the line, 1Z99

Well whats wrong with coupling to another voyager, plenty of them about

 

[TheSlash]

A voyager loses 2 engines? So say its a 4 car, thats 50% power gone, out of service at the first available point
5 car is 40% power gone and still out of service at the first available point. An HST can easily couple to a BR loco which will be allowed to push or pull it far enough to clear the line, 1Z99

Well whats wrong with coupling to another voyager, plenty of them about

Very rarely one behind the other though.

 

[AlexS]

You'd be surprised Slash! Voyagers sometimes crawl an awful long way on very few engines - only a few exceptions such as the Lickey where if you have less than 3, you are in a mess. It is possible in fact for one to crawl on one engine - enough power to get the unit off the line and into a siding, at any rate. With a HST, you occasionally get a few clowns like FGW who try to be funny (HST pushing another HST at 15mph for miles anyone?). But otherwise, they can be picked up and moved off, but then, so can the Voyagers. Dunno how, but occasionally one gets picked up by a 47 (if Virgin's 57s are too far away!)

 

[TheSlash]

Another problem with plastic trains, you can't get as many bikes on them as older units