Glorious NSE Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Havent the 185s been permanatly derated to save fuel ? The 68 seems pretty good on fuel so i reckon it will be cheaper to run Not sure to be honest. Last I heard they were switching out one set of engines automatically whenever it wasn't needed for mountain climbing, but either way that would suggest that even on their max possible power output the LHCS is more powerful, if all engines have been derated as well then it's even more pronounced... Although given it'll be nearly double the train capacity it might need it for moving the extra bodies. Why would a national operator need longer than a preserved operator? I would guess that preserved operators rarely need to couple anything but a relatively "dumb" loco to relatively "dumb" coaching stock, with the most complicated 'data' connection a brake pipe - rather than joining two hi-tech bits of kit that have to synch their onboard computers before they will let you do anything? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenman Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 ... I would guess that preserved operators rarely need to couple anything but a relatively "dumb" loco to relatively "dumb" coaching stock, with the most complicated 'data' connection a brake pipe - rather than joining two hi-tech bits of kit that have to synch their onboard computers before they will let you do anything? The Class 365s used by Great Northern are pretty ancient, but I think they still have computers onboard (to run that irritating PIS system, if nothing else!). It'll be intriguing to see if the introduction of higher-tech Electrostars (originally scheduled for this summer, now God knows when) will lead to an increase in coupling time. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted May 23, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 23, 2016 Not sure to be honest. Last I heard they were switching out one set of engines automatically whenever it wasn't needed for mountain climbing, but either way that would suggest that even on their max possible power output the LHCS is more powerful, if all engines have been derated as well then it's even more pronounced... Last time I was on a 185 the engine on the vehicle I was in didn't fire up until it was clear of Manchester (IIRC) but it stayed on for the rest of the journey after that. That was heading Scotland direction, so not straight over the Pennines. I probably bailed out at Preston but I doubt they'd have turned them off after that if it was a Scotland train. That was probably a couple of years ago (my memory is pretty hazy there too). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted May 23, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 23, 2016 Even in push pull mode the only things to couple are 2 ETH cables 2 air pipes and a jumper and a coupling of course. Should take less than a minute to do all of those Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Well done Tim - I plainly didn't see that coming. Ref HP - some assumptions and relying on wikepedia stats here, but: 68 = 85t Coaches = 35t x 5 (using Russ's figure) Whole train = 260t HP = 3800 HP/T = 14.62 185 = 168t (Max) HP = 750x3 = 2250 HP/T = 13.3 So if those are somewhere close it should be a bit more powerful overall configured as a loco + 5, and a lot more powerful on those bits where the 185 derates itself! I was thinking more of adhesive weight, which is important for acceleration and hill-climbing. I have no doubt either train can get to 100mph on the flat. Going by the figures above, the 68+LHCS has 85/260 tonnes on motored axles, which is about 32%, and the 185 has 50% if all engines are running which they probably would be on the steeper sections. When I have a bit of time to spare I'll do some calcs for the 1 in 96/105 from Huddersfield to Marsden. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted May 23, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 23, 2016 I was thinking more of adhesive weight, which is important for acceleration and hill-climbing. I have no doubt either train can get to 100mph on the flat. Going by the figures above, the 68+LHCS has 85/260 tonnes on motored axles, which is about 32%, and the 185 has 50% if all engines are running which they probably would be on the steeper sections. When I have a bit of time to spare I'll do some calcs for the 1 in 96/105 from Huddersfield to Marsden. The 68 wheelslip/traction system is reputed to be very good at dealing with less than optimal conditions (although it's not quite as good when they run out of sand.........) Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissRailPassion Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 And as the new class 68s will be working with a Driving Van at the other end there'll be no need for coupling up. The beauty of the plan is that it allows for progressive electrification and rolling stock enhancement. The 68s will be replaced with electrics, perhaps 91s or modified 88s as wiring is completed. The AT300s will be in service before then and the new CAF EMUs will be working on the West Coast. I think the plan for the North is fairly robust and it's so good to have a rolling stock plan after so many years of indecision. Rail travel is going to get a lot better for northerners, particularly when the new expanded timetables come in 2017 and 2018. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toffee Posted May 23, 2016 Author Share Posted May 23, 2016 No ones mentioned paint schemes for the 68s yet, or will they keep their DRS names :-) How many types of coaches do we reckon ? 5 car set of say driving trailer firsts at each end ( increases flexibility ) with 3 in the middle all seconds ? Any scope for others to piggyback an order for such as Cardiff-Portsmouth/ Scottish internal services ( might be a better idea than HSTs ?) It's rumoured that the Pretendileno is off to TPE very soon to work Liverpool - Scotland ? And yes, 68 haulage. All very interesting eh ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted May 23, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 23, 2016 All very interesting eh ? Yes, much to my disappointment. Whenever I see "new" I see something to grumble about, and I'm struggling a bit here. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissRailPassion Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 No ones mentioned paint schemes for the 68s yet, or will they keep their DRS names :-) How many types of coaches do we reckon ? 5 car set of say driving trailer firsts at each end ( increases flexibility ) with 3 in the middle all seconds ? Any scope for others to piggyback an order for such as Cardiff-Portsmouth/ Scottish internal services ( might be a better idea than HSTs ?) It's rumoured that the Pretendileno is off to TPE very soon to work Liverpool - Scotland ? And yes, 68 haulage. All very interesting eh ? I imagine a Driving First and four seconds. The CAF solution may be cheaper for Scotland than the 125 option. Basically a UK version of the Austrian Railjet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 If there are driving trailers at each end, they'll be the same bodyshells, and the seats won't line up with the windows in one class or the other. Probably both, actually... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted May 23, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 23, 2016 I reckon there will be a drinks machine in the second coach that has a pound coin stuck in it and no 7up and the third coach is a bit cold....... Non of it has been built yet guys, I've known for a year but obviously couldn't mention it here. We'll have to wait and see :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissRailPassion Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Only one Driving Trailer per set ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium nightstar.train Posted May 23, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 23, 2016 say driving trailer firsts at each end ( increases flexibility ) Why would this be necessary? The Mk2 with DBSO, and Mk3 and Mk4 with DVT have all managed perfectly well with just one DVT. Having two will increase system complexity and chance of failure, at increased cost. I can't see any upside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
159220 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 (edited) No ones mentioned paint schemes for the 68s yet, or will they keep their DRS names :-) How many types of coaches do we reckon ? 5 car set of say driving trailer firsts at each end ( increases flexibility ) with 3 in the middle all seconds ? Any scope for others to piggyback an order for such as Cardiff-Portsmouth/ Scottish internal services ( might be a better idea than HSTs ?) It's rumoured that the Pretendileno is off to TPE very soon to work Liverpool - Scotland ? And yes, 68 haulage. All very interesting eh ? All shall be confirmed in the DRS Press release (or I am misinformed denied), but, I understand 68026 upwards are for the TPE contract. The initial 7 (68026-032) currently on order and to be delivered in TPE livery shall be for the December 2016 timetable introduction of at least two TnT sets with Mk3 coaches from the ex-pretedolino and possibly a third formed with DRS mk3 stock. (Requires 7 68s with multiple working AAR or similar, which currently 016-025 do not have and why only 68008-015 work with Mk3s). As DRS/Beacon Rail were under EU regs allowed to order in total 41 x 68s, this means another 9 can be delivered. This would take the TPE fleet in 2018 to 16 TPE 68s with 68032-041 to cover 13 loco-hauled CAF stock with 16 locomotives. Whether these future 68s meet IIIb regs or not is to be seen. Edited May 24, 2016 by 159220 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 Even in push pull mode the only things to couple are 2 ETH cables 2 air pipes and a jumper and a coupling of course. Should take less than a minute to do all of those I seem to recall that push-pull operation past 100mph requires the loco to have a buckeye coupler or similar (or has that been relaxed?) so potentially the coupling/decoupling could be relatively swift to boot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 Some more info. http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/caf-to-supply-trains-to-transpennine-express.html http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/transpennine-express-orders-emus-and-hauled-stock.html Cheers David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 The CAF solution may be cheaper for Scotland than the 125 option. Basically a UK version of the Austrian Railjet. Not sure how it would be. New build is rarely cheaper to acquire than refurbished stock, especially when there is a cascade of displaced stock available and having the ability to cherry pick sets. Also, as others have noted, there's going to be a limited supply of suitable locomotives and Scotrail is looking at considerably more trainsets than TPE are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 Has there been any indication whether the LHCS will have the same/similar body shells as the stock being built for the Caledonian Sleeper? IIRC it was Rail Magazine that informally referred to these as the Mark 5. Cheers David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted May 24, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 24, 2016 (edited) Was it not CAF that built the most recent IC stock for Ireland? I would expect that to be the starting point. A reversion to LHCS is something that many of us have believed to be sensible and Chiltern have proved to work. With electric locos more powerful than equivalent diesels, there will be scope to add a couple of carriages to each set if passenger numbers increase. Edited May 24, 2016 by Joseph_Pestell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted May 24, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 24, 2016 (edited) No its called getting stuck in and getting dirty! When I was younger and fitter could multi up a pair of locos in less than 30 sec its all technique. ive uncoupled a 67 from stock in a couple of minutes, the most important thing is to look up and check the various electric cables are all out!, the longest part of the whole job was calling the box to get the adjacent platform line blocked and then calling back to get the block lifted of course then there was the fall out afterwards, other drivers saying i'd set a precident so they would be expected to couple and uncouple locos themselves, as pointed out by my then DSM we all had a days training on coupling, buckeyes etc so there was no reason not to do it, besides it made a possible 9 hour fuelling job less than 2 hours (rest day work) unfortunatly as russ says, and ive not been on the railway that long myself, but some drivers just dont want to get in and get their hands dirty, indeed some are simply scared to drive locos, the common factor being they are worried incase it fails, there were a number of drivers at chiltern who would sell their granny if it meant they could get out of driving the loco hauled stock as you say its just a case of getting in there, admittedly when i multied up a pair of 97s last week it look me a while as one loco had ploughs and im not exactly little to fit between them, thankfully it was just the one or id have really struggled! Edited May 24, 2016 by big jim 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest B Exam Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 All shall be confirmed in the DRS Press release (or I am misinformed denied), but, I understand 68026 upwards are for the TPE contract. The initial 7 (68026-032) currently on order and to be delivered in TPE livery shall be for the December 2016 timetable introduction of at least two TnT sets with Mk3 coaches from the ex-pretedolino and possibly a third formed with DRS mk3 stock. (Requires 7 68s with electric train supply which currently 016-025 do not have). As DRS/Beacon Rail were under EU regs allowed to order in total 41 x 68s, this means another 9 can be delivered. This would take the TPE fleet in 2018 to 16 TPE 68s with 68032-041 to cover 13 loco-hauled CAF stock with 16 locomotives. Whether these future 68s meet IIIb regs or not is to be seen. 68016-68025 have electric train supply. Or it must of been a figmant of my imagination for when they have worked the Fife circle trains with air conditioned coaches that require a electric train supply.... 68016-020 and 68023 of this batch have worked the Fife circle trains so far. 68001 has for some reason its ETS isolated at the moment according to TOPS. AIUI from other sources, 68026-68041 will be the dedicated locos for Trans Pennine - a extra 10 locos on order/to be ordered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted May 24, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 24, 2016 Only heard about this today as it was on Look North, but I think it's great news that some LHCS trains are returning. It all seems to make sense and I look forward to seeing them rattle out of Morley Tunnel like the peaks and 47's used to do. Toungue in Cheek I wonder if anyone will think of using some similar trains to move newspapers at night. Jamie 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 68023 on a/c passenger stock last week...Gurt big ETH jumper... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 I'm intrigued by the order for push-pull stock on top of the AT300s. I wonder if someone has done some re-thinking on bi-modes? I've never been completely convinced by the bi-mode concept for the IEP and AT300s as the trains are effectively dragging a raft of diesel engines around for part-time use and it must increase electricity consumption when running in emu mode. Indeed, coupled with the increased maintenance complexity I do wonder if, over the whole-life cost of the bi-mode, the additional costs associated with having a raft of part time diesels slung underneath the coaches adds significantly to the overall cost of operation. With a loco powered push-pull rake as electrification spreads across the Pennines it is easier to swap out the diesel prime mover for say more class 88s or even pure electric traction, leading to lower whole life costs. Oddly some 20 years back I was involved in a PTEG working group on environmental assessment and over lunch at one meeting we got to discussing whether the US idea of loco push-pull rakes for commuter trains, or the European/UK model of "distributed power" smaller engines under the coaches was better in terns of emissions and pollution control. I don't remember us coming to a conclusion but I think the consensus was a large single engine might just about be better in terms of emissions but that operationally distributed power had advantages in terms of redundancy in case of failure. I wonder if anyone out there has the scientific/mathematical data and knowledge to answer this question given today's engine technology? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now