Fictional Units (NOT BOARDROOMS!)

[griffgriff]

It’s not hallowe’en already is it!

[47137]

I present the class 208, a 100mph DEMU based on the Mk II d/e/f shell. Possible formations are DMSO-TC-TBSO-DMSO and DMSO-TC-TBSO-TRFB-TSO-DMSO.

...

 

I am pondering the prototype class 208, the first of class so to speak. This was a three-car set formed from a DMFO (much like the DMSO presented here but with a smaller engine compartment), a TSO and a DBSO. There was no catering vehicle of course, but a trolley service was provided for light refreshments.

 

The set was found to be reliable in operation and popular with passengers, but unable to hold a sustained speed of 100 mph. Production units thus had a second motor coach. The chosen routes could not provide sufficient first class passengers, and so the production units had only standard class accommodation.

 

- Richard.

[Catkins]

Something horrifying!

 

PacerEMU.jpg

 

QuadPacer.jpg

 

Cheers

David

There was a (un)feasability study to see whether it was possible to put a pacer on bogies, with the inner ends on an articulated bogie.

I think it got to the stage of the costs outweighed the benefits.

[Grizz]

Mk3 flat fronted units??? Only rough old efforts but I knocked these up about 20 odd years back....the intercity liveried one was for a replacement for the Gatwick Express.

 

 

 

 

Or possibly with electric doors and an HST power bogie???

 

 

[Corbs]

I had this in my head since travelling on one for the first time the other day, Hitachi TPO. 

 

Edited January 10, 2019 by Corbs

[DavidB-AU]

I had this in my head since travelling on one for the first time the other day, Hitachi TPO. 

 

hitachi-1a.jpg

 

This looks neat! Possibly it might have doors closer to a 325?

 

Cheers

David

[DavidB-AU]

Class 825, styled like a 325.

 

 

Cheers

David

[DavidB-AU]

A class 173, intended to replace the 153 and work in multiple with the 172/3. I drew this before WMT existed.

 

 

Cheers

David

[BernardTPM]

Class 825, styled like a 325.

825.jpg

Cheers

David

For structural reasons I would have throught that the door would be unlikely to be right over the bogie like that. Even the forward one i probably too close.

[DavidB-AU]

Probably the same reason the doors on the 325 are closer to the middle.

 

 

Cheers

David

['CHARD]

And a class 209 DEMU based on the Mk III shell. Formations can be made up with HST trailers in any combination but with a flat nose would probably be limited to 100mph.

 

DMBSO

209DMBSO.png

 

Cheers

David

 

Could obviously use the Class 442 cab style on a MkIII version.

[DavidB-AU]

Maybe slidey rail territory needs a mail unit too?

 

 

Cheers

David

Edited January 11, 2019 by DavidB-AU

[Ravenser]

Then may I present the Armstrong Whitworth 'Skye class' diesel electric railcar. Ignoring, for the time being, the articulated and power-house plus rakes that they were also involved with, which are more closely related to the locomotive designs, AW produced several different designs of railcar for broad, standard and narrow gauges. One of the smaller designs, that built for the North Western in India that ran on the Kalka-Simla line still exists in the Indian Railway Museum (2nd unit down).This was quite a small affair that ran on its own, providing a premium service on the line, most AW railcars though were designed with multiple working and trailer haulage in mind, some combined with driving trailers and it was this latter theme I was looking to develop.

A curious part-bogie railcar built for the GBSR in India had this ability. The chassis of this 2ft 6in gauge beast was tested on the Leek and Manifold Railway in 1932. A larger 2' 6" bogie railcar followed in 1934 for the GIPR, the DT41. In common with most of their lighter railcars this was powered by an Armstrong-Saurer diesel engine. This were much more compact than the big Armstrong-Sulzer engines, as I used in AW250, so although the engine compartment was above the floor, rather than below it, it was only about a single compartment length long. It has to be said that bodily DT41 was hardly a thing of beauty, but was a very practical design. Unfortunately there's no picture online, but it is mentioned on this page (scroll down). There are drawings and photographs in the Armstrong Whitworth Diesel Pioneers book. Transmission is electric, a motor under the floor driving the bogie via a cardan shaft.

As it was exported simply as a chassis, it is obvious that bodywork could have been 'to taste'. Park Royal were well-known and were involved in a number of railway contracts, including several in conjunction with AW. Those I've taken inspiration from are DT16, a standard gauge railcar of 1933 (ironically, in view of what I said above, this actually does have an underfloor engine, resulting in very tiered seating!) and DT71, a batch of railcars for Western Australia, 3' 6" gauge delivered in 1937, right at the end of their diesel rail traction venture.

So there's the inspiration. For the specification, what was needed was both railcars and driving trailers for 2' 6" gauge, capable of being worked in multiple with each other and an AW locomotive. The 45 foot of DT41 was a bit too long, though the 7' 6" width and approx 10' height was about right. The length was brought down to 38 foot over headstocks and bogie wheelbase from 4' 6" to 3' 6". The railcar itself has two driving cabs, so it can be used singly, engine compartment, guard's/luggage compartment and two Third class saloons. The driving trailer as a driving cab, one First class and two Third class saloons. They are shown here in LNER 'Tourist' livery:

 

AWSkyeclassrailcarsDefinitive.jpg

 

Developing the family: by mounting the motor and generator in line (perhaps a little inspired by the contemporary AEC 'Q' buses), alongside the radiator which remains as before, there is sufficient room for a through public gangway (note the 3" thick, sound-proofed walls). Combined with the through gangway cab already designed this could allow fully flexible operation with up to four twin sets in multiple operation:

 

AWexportthroughgangway.jpg

 

A few possible configurations for power/trailer corridor sets:

 

AW Corridor Railcars.jpg

 

 

Very interesting . My prospective 2'6" line on some islands in the N Sea , operated by the Royal Engineers for the benefit of the Navy and RAF and a few fishermen , might have a use for one of these....

[Compound2632]

I had this in my head since travelling on one for the first time the other day, Hitachi TPO. 

 

hitachi-1a.jpg

 

I rather fancy the idea of lineside exchange apparatus rated for 140 mph operation.... 

[DavidB-AU]

I rather fancy the idea of lineside exchange apparatus rated for 140 mph operation....

Speaking of which...

 

 

Cheers

David

[Darlington South Junction]

this took me about a minute to do. I call it the class 190. Suited for TPE's habit of overcrowding trains. More are being built for arriva trains wales and northern

Edited January 20, 2019 by Trainspotter395

[Satan's Goldfish]

With the re-distribution of the HSTs to smaller sets and bigger emphasis on Bi-modes, My brain got to work on thinking that 2x class 43 power cars for just 4 coaches is very overkill and they can't do the full 125mph in such short form anyway. So how about hooking them up a single power car to the equivalent of a mk3 based emu and amending the controls in each so they can control each other? i.e the HST has the ability to raise the pan, and the single EMU cab can start up and run the diesel. I did think about 317s for this, but seeing how there are spare 442s about and the cabs look much nicer, plus they have full length mk3 coach bodies, I reasoned they're a better starting point.

 

Convert spare mk3 buffets into the power cars for the EMUs, with the 'kitchen' space being used for the electrical gear, train manager office, and drinks trolley. Only a single 442 cab and a single class 43 is needed for each set which would reduce maintenance costs. Length can be easily varied by adding/subtracting extra mk3 vehicles as required. Common communication and power systems would be needed for the set but there would be no need for traction power to be carried between vehicles as a class 43 at 2250hp would be more than enough to shift a short unit. A longer unit that splits to 2 separate destinations that passengers can pass all the way through could be created by connecting 2x blunt ends together.

 

I've drawn it up using a Grand Central HST as a base as it would also work as a replacement to their 2+5 sets as most of their journey is spent under wires, but I imagine it would work very well for cross country services as well which run on a mixture of lines with different passenger levels, and no sitting on top of diesel engines as with the voyagers. The other reason for using the Grand Central HST is the buffers at the pointy end which would be useful for connecting units together if there's 2 running that aren't blunt end to blunt end.

 

 

To me that seems a good 'cheap' solution to stock shortages, using vehicles (HST + mk3s) that despite their age are still liked, and adheres to the current green trend of making everything bi-mode. If Viva rail can do it by recycling D-stock...

[RLBH]

Interesting idea, but means that you lose out on the high power/weight of short HSTs that allows them to operate on an otherwise DMU/EMU railway without getting in the way of things. Performance of the whole shooting match with a single EMU-type power car might be rather unimpressive with an HST along for the ride, and if the HST is being towed 'dead' it won't do the traction motors any good.

[Satan's Goldfish]

1 hour ago, RLBH said:

Interesting idea, but means that you lose out on the high power/weight of short HSTs that allows them to operate on an otherwise DMU/EMU railway without getting in the way of things. Performance of the whole shooting match with a single EMU-type power car might be rather unimpressive with an HST along for the ride, and if the HST is being towed 'dead' it won't do the traction motors any good.

 

Hmmm, ok, so distributed power between the OHL power unit and the Class 43 would make sense then to provide better acceleration and to reduce strain on the traction motors.

 

The single coach power vehicle of a class 442 on 3rd rail made roughly 1600hp using recycled traction motors from 4REPs (if I remember right), so I'm making a very rash assumption that a new traction 21st century traction equipment package in the EMU using AC motors could be comparable to the power produced by a single class 43.

 

So is a nominal 2000hp spread through 8 out 24 axles (1/3rd of the total) comparable to fit with modern unit timings?

[RLBH]

5 minutes ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

The single coach power vehicle of a class 442 on 3rd rail made roughly 1600hp using recycled traction motors from 4REPs (if I remember right), so I'm making a very rash assumption that a new traction 21st century traction equipment package in the EMU using AC motors could be comparable to the power produced by a single class 43.

 

If you run the power car in parallel with the overhead electrics, yes, you'll get plenty of power - if you used Class 390-type traction motors it's perfectly possible to beat 2,000hp in the motor coach alone. But running a big diesel under the wires seems to defeat the point of having this kind of bodged together bi-mode.

[Grizz]

Satan's Goldfish, were you planning to re-engine the HST power car? Possibly to a similar configuaration to a Bombardier TRAXX (DB CLASS 245) Gen Set loco. This is the loco that has 4 x 720hp Diesel engines inside, these work on demand principle. The power that these engines provide can power its own traction motors for all non electrified routes, or if linked throughout the train to another car with bogies fitted with traction motors, e.g. A 442 guards brake type coach. 

 

Stating the SBO, your multi mode unit/loco set needs power to move, in what ever form that takes. 

How this power is collected (from over heads / third rail) or from on board generation is one thing and it's going to be determined by the availability of OHLE or 3rd Rail. How the power is then distrubuted throughout the train is the really clever bit. So you could have a central power management control unit, which manages this for you. 

 

I guess your point is that if you include diesel into the mix you have a 'Go Everywhere Unit'.....without diesel or a massive battery storage unit, your train is limited to a fixed supply and therefore is a 'Not Go Everywhere Unit'. 

 

I like your idea, I like the idea that trains can go everywhere, right up to the end of every buffer stop of every route. For me the BR DEMU 205/207 units were a great example of this. If only they could have found a way to connect up a 73 then the principle would have been the same as yours.

 

I like your ideas, keep up the good work mate.

 

ATB Grizz

 

[Satan's Goldfish]

Cheers Grizz, I hadn't thought about a re-engine for the 43 but that does make sense as not all routes would require the full 2250hp. I keep meaning to do some research on current unit power and speed ratings to try and get this concept to match. The basic thinking is that if a 2+8 is good for 125mph and is quite responsive at getting to that speed then a 1+4 HST should have a similar performance. The routes such a unit would be needed on though generally don't need it to travel at 125mph and even 1+6 should still have a decent top end (acceleration would take a bit of impact though), which is where the unit power rating compared to similar weight/capacity existing multiple units needs to be looked at. For example, 2x 159/170 etc, or 3x 158, 165, etc for diesel timings. Adding power/driven axles to the EMU potion of the concept is going to be a simpler proposition to help match existing services, especially if there's is a distributed traction power bus for the whole unit which would power the class 43 wheels while under wires but without burning diesel.

 

 

 

Edit: had a quick check, the engines used on the 170 units (more powerful than the 158 units) make 422hp and drive just 1 bogie per vehicle. So a 5 car unit would be 2110hp which is less than the 2250 of a class 43, but 6 car unit would have 2532hp so the short HST bi-mode concept would have slightly less power but still comparable.

 

Taking the Class 350 as a generic OHL EMU, that's quoting 2100hp for a 4 car unit with again just 50% of the axles powered, just like the 170. So the core of the entire class 43/EMU bi-mode concept could be 2x passenger coaches with all axles driven (1 with pantograph fitted) next to the class 43 (also with its axles driven) so all 3 can power share to the driven axles efficiently, and then an unpowered driving vehicle to complete a 1+3 formation which allows the ability to insert further unpowered coaches to increase unit length up to 1+6, which would just require communication/interior power cabling rather than big chunky power distribution cabling. Up to 1+5 would still have at least 50% of the axles driven.

 

Also, the re-engine idea for the class 43 to a 'Gen Set' style would have the advantage in this case that if 1 diesel engine fails it doesn't leave the whole unit stranded which retaining the current Mirlees lump would. Grizz, your example of a 720hp unit is Ideal as with all 4 running it would be under-stressed, and if 1 failed it would still be able to produce 2160hp which should affect timings too much. The much smaller out-in Gen-Set replacement method of repair would also return the power car to traffic much quicker too.

 

So there's definitely a recycle existing assets option here...

Edited March 28, 2019 by Satan's Goldfish

[Grizz]

Check this out....this is the BMU....from the Rail Operations Group. Second item down from the top. 

 

Looks to be an ex Class 319 'Thameslink' unit used as a basis for a Logistics

 

https://www.railopsgroup.co.uk/news/

 

I have had a go at this type of thing in the past using a Hornby 'Networker' as the basis for a unit with the windows blanked out, a bit like a 325. The idea being that these units could use palletised goods, parcels or caged packages to deliver them to stations and hubs. These would be able to couple to normal passenger units or run as dedicated services in their own right, keeping up with regular train service speeds. The main concept is to replace long and medium distance white van flows from city centre to city centre....

 

 

[WestRail642fan]

On 27/12/2018 at 07:14, DavidB-AU said:

Something horrifying!

 

 

 

Cheers

David

i unironically tried to make a 2 version of the second one on roblox

[TTDB]

On 27/12/2018 at 04:29, DavidB-AU said:

And a class 209 DEMU based on the Mk III shell. Formations can be made up with HST trailers in any combination but with a flat nose would probably be limited to 100mph.

 

DMBSO

 

Cheers

David

 

Such trains but as EMUs were built on these shells for Taiwan recently withdrawn from service.