why didn't Hitachi just build new power cars with pantographs and hydrogen powered engines?

[R G NOW.]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/great-western-electrification-progress.83452/

I was thinking in bed, why didn't Hitachi just build new power cars for the HSTs with the pans on the top and a hydrogen powered engine for when there is no overhead power pickup?

This would of probably had been cheaper and passengers wouldn't have lost the buffet and have to endure the hated ironing board seats.

The coaches will have been provided with power operated doors as they have done on the 4 car versions and there would be passenger information displays added.

The trains using the new live electrical system on the GWML 90 percent of the time.

 

[59CosG95]

Although slightly off topic, But it is still the Great Western Mainline. I was thinking in bed, why didn't Hitachi just build new power cars for the HST's with the pans on the top and a hydrogen powered engine for when there is no overhead power pickup. This would of probably had been cheaper and passengers wouldn't of lost the buffet and have to endure the hated ironing board seats. The coaches will of been provided with power operated doors as they have done on the 4 car versions and there would be passenger displays added. The trains using the new live electrical system on the GWML 90 percent of the time.

BR did do planning for the HST-E in the 80s if I recall, and even ran some test runs with one of the pantograph fitted test cars, but it came to naught.
Hitachi also undertook the "Hayabusa" project with 43089, which fitted a battery to the powercar, essentially making it a battery-diesel hybrid, similar to a Prius. However, while test runs were successful, and 43089 operated NMT trains on battery power, the battery's size required 43089 to be permanently coupled to a TGS fitted with electrical equipment, which sacrificed guard space (and would also have sacrificed space in passenger accommodation at the 1st Class end), so the scheme was abandoned and 43089 returned to regular service with EMT.

Back in the present, the coaches aren't exactly young, and it would have cost several arms & legs to overhaul every coach to that standard. At the time of procurement, hydrogen power hadn't advanced sufficiently to enable a full-scale replacement of MTUs with hydrogen powerpacks, which, even if they could reach the same level of performance, would take up more space - and that's before you consider the additional space required to house the pantograph wiring, transformers, inverters & rectifiers...

So, a nice idea while lying in bed, but one that's an unfortunate non-starter.

 

[class26]

BR did do planning for the HST-E in the 80s if I recall, and even ran some test runs with one of the pantograph fitted test cars, but it came to naught.
Hitachi also undertook the "Hayabusa" project with 43089, which fitted a battery to the powercar, essentially making it a battery-diesel hybrid, similar to a Prius. However, while test runs were successful, and 43089 operated NMT trains on battery power, the battery's size required 43089 to be permanently coupled to a TGS fitted with electrical equipment, which sacrificed guard space (and would also have sacrificed space in passenger accommodation at the 1st Class end), so the scheme was abandoned and 43089 returned to regular service with EMT.

Back in the present, the coaches aren't exactly young, and it would have cost several arms & legs to overhaul every coach to that standard. At the time of procurement, hydrogen power hadn't advanced sufficiently to enable a full-scale replacement of MTUs with hydrogen powerpacks, which, even if they could reach the same level of performance, would take up more space - and that's before you consider the additional space required to house the pantograph wiring, transformers, inverters & rectifiers...

So, a nice idea while lying in bed, but one that's an unfortunate non-starter.

and regarding the coaches being refurbished / re engineered etc those for Scotrail are not exactly meeting with huge success. They have had their day sadly and we must move on.

 

[43096]

BR did do planning for the HST-E in the 80s if I recall, and even ran some test runs with one of the pantograph fitted test cars, but it came to naught.
Hitachi also undertook the "Hayabusa" project with 43089, which fitted a battery to the powercar, essentially making it a battery-diesel hybrid, similar to a Prius. However, while test runs were successful, and 43089 operated NMT trains on battery power, the battery's size required 43089 to be permanently coupled to a TGS fitted with electrical equipment, which sacrificed guard space (and would also have sacrificed space in passenger accommodation at the 1st Class end), so the scheme was abandoned and 43089 returned to regular service with EMT.

The batteries were in the TGS, not the power car, and the TGS was totally stripped internally for its role - there was no provision for any staff or passenger space in it.

 

[edwin_m]

Probably the most advanced hydrogen train project is the ones in service in Germany, where a large part of the roofspace is taken up by hydrogen tanks. That's for a regional train, in a country where the larger loading gauge provides more space at roof level. As an illustration, Porterbrook's experimental hydrogen train uses the entirety of two cars of the four-car unit to house the storage and propulsion equipment. A production version might do a bit better but the project to convert a 321 with hydrogen tanks in the roof seems to have gone very quiet.

An intercity unit would need relatively more hydrogen storage as it uses more energy at higher speeds and probably travels further before it is able to re-fuel. Trying to fit that much storage into an existing design would be a major rebuild at minimum, and probably impossible. The problems encountered with the power door re-builds show how difficult it can be to make big changes to a design now coming up to 50 years old. Also a modified HST would most likely need to have the hydrogen storage in the trailers and flexible pipe connectors to bring it to the power cars, which are an obvious source of reliability and safety risk.

 

[swt_passenger]

Hitachi were never asked to provide new HST power cars, is the simple answer.

However their original plan to meet the IEP spec did have generator cars at either one or both ends of the new train, but this was quickly abandoned in favour of maximising passenger space, which provides for a 260m passenger train, rather than the HST’s 184m...

 

[mr_jrt]

Given that I hate underfloor diesel engines, I still feel it would have made more sense to have a fully-motored EMU rake hooked up to a diesel power car to generate the juice away from the wires. You're only sacrificing the power car's length on routes that need bimode as you wouldn't have it for fully wired routes. I know the IEP can have the engines removed, but that's a lot more involved than just disconnecting a diesel power car. I suppose the IEP we've ended up with does mean those engines couple be swapped with battery packs though, which is something, I guess.

 

[edwin_m]

Given that I hate underfloor diesel engines, I still feel it would have made more sense to have a fully-motored EMU rake hooked up to a diesel power car to generate the juice away from the wires. You're only sacrificing the power car's length on routes that need bimode as you wouldn't have it for fully wired routes. I know the IEP can have the engines removed, but that's a lot more involved than just disconnecting a diesel power car. I suppose the IEP we've ended up with does mean those engines couple be swapped with battery packs though, which is something, I guess.

Yes and no. It might have made sense for the Swansea service for example, once electrification had been cancelled. With a train every hour the timetable could be arranged so each diesel power car had only a short wait at Cardiff before its next working (although even then eastbound delays could knock on to westbound services if they had to wait at Cardiff for the power car to arrive). Less suitable for extensions a few times a day such as Aberdeen and Inverness, where each power car might only achieve one daily return working. And not suitable at all for the West of England, where long stops would have to be added at Newbury on trains that mostly have no reason to stop there today, or trains would run on diesel under the wires to/from Reading.

 

[59CosG95]

The batteries were in the TGS, not the power car, and the TGS was totally stripped internally for its role - there was no provision for any staff or passenger space in it.

Ah. Even nore of a reason why EMT etc were keen to retain as many seats as possible!

 

[R G NOW.]

Thanks to the above posters for the answers above, which made interesting reading. The reason why I suggested this was purely on the basis that the I.E.T Trains have the diesel engines underneath which is not a good idea, as they vibrate beneath the seats and you feel as if you are sitting on a washing machine.(feels like being on an old class 150.) My original suggestion was to combine the engine and electrical switch gear into a slightly longer power car, than the HST one so there would be room for the train manager and several bicycles.

 

[mr_jrt]

Yes and no. It might have made sense for the Swansea service for example, once electrification had been cancelled. With a train every hour the timetable could be arranged so each diesel power car had only a short wait at Cardiff before its next working (although even then eastbound delays could knock on to westbound services if they had to wait at Cardiff for the power car to arrive). Less suitable for extensions a few times a day such as Aberdeen and Inverness, where each power car might only achieve one daily return working. And not suitable at all for the West of England, where long stops would have to be added at Newbury on trains that mostly have no reason to stop there today, or trains would run on diesel under the wires to/from Reading.

Then either develop places like Newbury as a location worthy of a stop or extend the wires to the next relevant major stop

I take your point on the power cars only getting light usage for the occasional services. Perhaps the services could be split at the changeover station with diesel shuttles services from there, or the power cars could be used for multiple purposes, i.e. with shorter rakes for local or regional services.

 

[sprinterguy]

Thanks to the above posters for the answers above, which made interesting reading. The reason why I suggested this was purely on the basis that the I.E.T Trains have the diesel engines underneath which is not a good idea, as they vibrate beneath the seats and you feel as if you are sitting on a washing machine.(feels like being on an old class 150.) My original suggestion was to combine the engine and electrical switch gear into a slightly longer power car, than the HST one so there would be room for the train manager and several bicycles.

The Chinese firm CSRE were punting such a thing as their Polaris product towards the start of the last decade, which could have featured electro-diesel power cars as you describe and would reputedly have been compatible with mark 3 coaches, though new build coaching stock was also offered:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_(train)
https://www.transportationdesigners.com/designer/portfolio/schoenemann/three/406

They offered trains to both Grand Central and Alliance Rail, but ultimately it came to nought.

As noted above by swt_passenger the IET design originally intended for the diesel power source to be housed in a separate power car, but this was dispensed with to permit greater passenger capacity and increased redundancy in the case of an engine failure.

The coaches will have been provided with power operated doors as they have done on the 4 car versions and there would be passenger information displays added.

It's taken Wabtec nearly three years to date to modify and deliver 108 power door fitted mark 3 vehicles for Crosscountry, Scotrail and GWR. If Wabtec had been charged with modifying all 53 of GWRs' 8-car HST rakes, and all 15 of LNERs' 9-car rakes, they would have been required to undertake the same work on a total of 559 vehicles (Not including spares): How long do you reckon that would take?

The mark 3s are at least 40 years old and riddled with corrosion. The GWR inter-city fleet in particular is also now significantly larger in terms of both complete trainsets and individual vehicles as a result of total fleet replacement rather than just replacing power cars. The LNER fleet has also seen growth.

This would of probably had been cheaper and passengers wouldn't have lost the buffet and have to endure the hated ironing board seats.

Passengers also wouldn't have seen the increase in seating capacity that has been achieved by dispensing with power cars and running 9 or 10-car passenger formations with longer carriages.

The trains using the new live electrical system on the GWML 90 percent of the time.

I'm not sure that's true. When they first started operating, due to delays to GWML electrification, they were only operating as far as Reading on electric - All of 36 miles from Paddington. To this day, electric services have only just reached Cardiff Central, with an electrically dead section through the Severn Tunnel.

There are no wires from Didcot to Oxford, Worcester and Hereford.
There are no wires from Swindon to Cheltenham Spa.
There are no wires from Thingley Junction to Bristol via Bath.
There are no wires from Bristol Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads.
There are no wires from Cardiff Central to Swansea.
There are no wires from Newbury to Exeter, Plymouth and Penzance.

Hopefully the gaps between Didcot and Oxford, and Bristol Parkway and Temple Meads will be infilled during the CP6 period, but the rest, especially Cardiff - Swansea, Oxford - Hereford and Newbury - Penzance, represent a hefty proportion of GWR inter-city mileage.

From a UK rail perspective, hydrogen propulsion is an embryonic technology that has yet to be proven on UK railways today, let alone when the IEP was being devised over ten years ago.

 

[whhistle]

You're only sacrificing the power car's length on routes that need bimode as you wouldn't have it for fully wired routes.

And fleet flexibility.
One route could be rammed with passengers but another has trains in sidings out of use.

 

[mr_jrt]

Odds are if a diesel line is rammed there would be a case for extending the wires, or ordering/reallocating a few more power cars to permit more extensions, surely?