DVT used as test bed for new transmission

[woodenhead]

Presumably, the MK3 DVT has been selected because it already has a cab and a safety case to allow mainline running, but I'd presume that the idea was not to wholesale rebuild DVTs into DMUs, unless they're eyeing up all the East Anglian rakes that are about to be displaced?

 

I wonder though if a DVT doesnt have a safety case as a passenger carrying vehicle - Chiltern otherwise might have converted some.

 

In the absence though of an actual body to put these in with wheels and seats I wonder what the plan would be should the trial prove successful

[Wild Boar Fell]

Wasn't the plan more along the lines of the energy stored by the system would allow the train to depart from stations without the 68s taking power (or as much anyway), therefore reducing emissions locally to the station. 68s could then notch up outside the station, away from the public.

[woodenhead]

Wasn't the plan more along the lines of the energy stored by the system would allow the train to depart from stations without the 68s taking power (or as much anyway), therefore reducing emissions locally to the station. 68s could then notch up outside the station, away from the public.

Reading again, maybe, but would two powered axles in a light DVT move a whole train and class 68 on it's own or is that not the plan either, the 68 would just apply less power and let the DVT replace the missing power.

 

So we've had locos and coaches and distributed power across all coaches in units, was only a matter of time before the two got combined in some way.

[adanapress]

 

 

I wonder who now remembers the WW2 Irish solution (lack of coal) to this kind of requirement. With

installed ''Drumm'' batteries being recharged via OHLE, which didnt extend beyond station limits.

The 'Drumm' trains were very sucessful and ran for years.

[iands]

Presumably, the MK3 DVT has been selected because it already has a cab and a safety case to allow mainline running, but I'd presume that the idea was not to wholesale rebuild DVTs into DMUs, unless they're eyeing up all the East Anglian rakes that are about to be displaced?

The DVT will have a safety case for what it is used for now, namely a DVT. If you add another cab, a power unit and powered axles it will require a whole new safety case and technical file.

 

Regards, Ian.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I wonder who now remembers the WW2 Irish solution (lack of coal) to this kind of requirement. With

installed ''Drumm'' batteries being recharged via OHLE, which didnt extend beyond station limits.

The 'Drumm' trains were very sucessful and ran for years.

I was not aware of these. But it's a great solution for urban tramways.

[Joseph_Pestell]

With 900hp, one could make a very good secondhand train with driving motor (ex 82) + trailer +  driving trailer from a withdrawn 321/455 or similar. Plenty of space within the 82 for bicycles, wheelchairs, etc for DDA compliance.

 

An ex 82 on each end sandwiching six trailers might even be a possibility (225hp per vehicle : 6.8hp/tonne). That could be ideal on some non-electrified routes with overcrowding issues or as a spot-hire/charter train.

[Talltim]

A photo of the inner end a few weeks ago

https://goo.gl/images/81iFUF

[Joseph_Pestell]

With 900hp, one could make a very good secondhand train with driving motor (ex 82) + trailer +  driving trailer from a withdrawn 321/455 or similar. Plenty of space within the 82 for bicycles, wheelchairs, etc for DDA compliance.

 

An ex 82 on each end sandwiching six trailers might even be a possibility (225hp per vehicle : 6.8hp/tonne). That could be ideal on some non-electrified routes with overcrowding issues or as a spot-hire/charter train.

Reading the article referenced above, I see that the ambition is to have all the mechanical gubbins below floor. That is ambitious with that much power plant but shows how much engine technology has moved on.

 

So I would guess that the 82 is very much intended as a test vehicle but that new vehicles would be built if it moves on to production.

[frobisher]

Reading the article referenced above, I see that the ambition is to have all the mechanical gubbins below floor. That is ambitious with that much power plant but shows how much engine technology has moved on.

 

So I would guess that the 82 is very much intended as a test vehicle but that new vehicles would be built if it moves on to production.

That would be quite suited to the MK3 derived EMU family. The same factor that makes the bi-mode-ing of the 319/455 a possibility (lack of anything pretty much under the driving trailers) lends itself to this kind of power plant placement.

 

So speculative hat on; We've got a bunch of 317s and 321s about to go off lease from East Anglia which are recently(ish) refurbished. You could either eliminate or retain the MSO (if you want bi-mode capability, but that would be "fun" from a few technical standpoints) and motorise a single DTSO/DTCO or use a slightly less powerful engine in each.

[Covkid]

As has been said there have been "public" announcements about this project back in the summer.

 

From what I understand Artemis want to experiment with hydraulics and stored energy, and are converting the redundant DVT for trials. The car is being fitted with JCB hydraulics engine etc and the aim is to capture kinetic energy during braking, then reuse it for pulling away. The vehicle is intended to be trialled for three months as a replacement for a Chiltern Railway DVT on one of their class 68 hauled / pushed Mk3 sets. 

 

AIUI DVTs have little extra weight capacity over what they were plated for as luggage vans so the equipment Artemis are installing will need to be conservative in weight even if not in volume.

 

The class 19 designation I believe is a red herring as certification of new traction to operate on NWR is substantial, but for the DVT to operate at any realistic speed with any kind of payload would also need substantially more horsepower than a JCB engine. 

 

I am sure we will hear more when the vehicle is ready for it's three month trial, and I admire CR for apparently taking on the risk of such developing technology within the current TDA system used by Network Rail to apportion delay In the industry.

[phil-b259]

That would be quite suited to the MK3 derived EMU family. The same factor that makes the bi-mode-ing of the 319/455 a possibility (lack of anything pretty much under the driving trailers) lends itself to this kind of power plant placement.

 

So speculative hat on; We've got a bunch of 317s and 321s about to go off lease from East Anglia which are recently(ish) refurbished. You could either eliminate or retain the MSO (if you want bi-mode capability, but that would be "fun" from a few technical standpoints) and motorise a single DTSO/DTCO or use a slightly less powerful engine in each.

 

Please be aware that what makes the 319 (and also potentially the 455s) so attractive for conversion is the 750V DC power bus running throughout the unit and the 750V traction gear. In effect all it takes to turn them into a Bi-mode is to build some engines that produce 750V DC and fool the electrics into thinking its running from the con rail. Technically no modifications are necessary to the traction equipment - useful if it has recently been renewed or has quite a lot of life left in it.

 

AC units like the 321s and 317s lack this feature - which makes conversion to a Bi-mode more expensive - to do the same as the 319s you require a diesel engine to output 25KV to feed into the transformer! Now obviously you can remove the transformer and muck around with the other electrical bits - but doing so brings extra costs, which may not be economic for the owner to fund bearing in mind what they can charge in lease costs and the remaining vehicle lifespan.

[frobisher]

AC units like the 321s and 317s lack this feature - which makes conversion to a Bi-mode more expensive - to do the same as the 319s you require a diesel engine to output 25KV to feed into the transformer! Now obviously you can remove the transformer and muck around with the other electrical bits - but doing so brings extra costs, which may not be economic for the owner to fund bearing in mind what they can charge in lease costs and the remaining vehicle lifespan.

Yes, but that's what makes the 321's and 317'2 more suitable for the conversion being talked about here than the 455/319. You're not feeding the existing 25kV system at all from the engine(s) in the driver trailers (which is why removing the MSO is probably the way to go, as two transmission systems in a single train could be "interesting" from a control perspective) and you're not using the existing traction motors when under diesel power if you retain the MSO in the mix. You just need to ensure the auxiliary systems have are powered which could be done with a much smaller motor-generator set and batteries.

[phil-b259]

Yes, but that's what makes the 321's and 317'2 more suitable for the conversion being talked about here than the 455/319. You're not feeding the existing 25kV system at all from the engine(s) in the driver trailers (which is why removing the MSO is probably the way to go, as two transmission systems in a single train could be "interesting" from a control perspective) and you're not using the existing traction motors when under diesel power if you retain the MSO in the mix. You just need to ensure the auxiliary systems have are powered which could be done with a much smaller motor-generator set and batteries.

 

It depends on what you mean by 'suitable'

 

The whole point about the 319 (and potentially 455) conversions is the minimal level of alterations needed to the traction stuff. If its too expensive the lease company might as well scrap the things!

 

Thus while a 321 conversion is perfectly doable - it will cost more than a DC EMU conversion. This is particularly true if you want to retain the 'hybrid' aspect*

 

*By basically fooling a 319 its running on 3rd rail by adding diesel engines, then you don't touch the 25KV side - which can be used under OLE on the likes of the WCML etc. On the 455s retaining the shoegaear and a few very minor mods to the power bus allows you to retain the 3rd rail capability where it exists.

[frobisher]

It depends on what you mean by 'suitable'

 

The whole point about the 319 (and potentially 455) conversions is the minimal level of alterations needed to the traction stuff. If its too expensive the lease company might as well scrap the things!

Indeed; The 455/319 "just" need to add the motor generator set to the underframe on the vehicles that have the space because the DC power bus is already there. The AC units obviously don't have this, so the Flex upgrade involves a considerable amount of rebuilding rendering it non-viable. However, this system might be in the same ball park price wise as it is "just" a power pack and the addition of a drive linkage to one bogie.

 

Thus while a 321 conversion is perfectly doable - it will cost more than a DC EMU conversion. This is particularly true if you want to retain the 'hybrid' aspect*

That may be partially what they are trying to evaluate - the cost effectiveness for refitting existing vehicles vs new building vehicles with this drive train. For the moment we know it's a technology demonstrator.

 

What we do know is that there are fleets of EMUs that are far from life expired that would have probably been earmarked for redeployment if only the government hadn't slashed its electrification plans. At the very least we're going to have a veritable mountain of trailer vehicles that could be repurposed.

[Davexoc]

A photo of the inner end a few weeks ago

https://goo.gl/images/81iFUF

Looking at the colour they have painted it, it would be more at home as additional power for a Caledonian Sleeper.

 

Dave

[newbryford]

A picture has appeared on wnxx  showing the inner end painted yellow (allegedly for the second cab) , as well as bodyside cutouts for air intakes.

 

This link may work. http://www.wnxx.com/17/1712/041217/19001.htm

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Joseph_Pestell]

A second cab would surely involve massive reconstruction work: = expensive.

 

Without that work, I could see that it would be useful for test running but only on a line that was "one-engine-in-steam".

[cheesysmith]

Anybody want to fit this drive system to a 500bhp engine and fit it under a PEP motor coach for a unit as a cheap DMU replacement? 2 motor coaches would be enough for a 3 coach train with a centre trailier.

[frobisher]

Anybody want to fit this drive system to a 500bhp engine and fit it under a PEP motor coach for a unit as a cheap DMU replacement? 2 motor coaches would be enough for a 3 coach train with a centre trailier.

I don't think the PEP derived units are likely to be a good candidate for updating this way.

 

Firstly, you've got two driving motors in each set already, from which you would have to remove the traction motors and the associated underframe gubbins.

Secondly, these are the oldest EMUs still in operation (predating most of the MK3 dervived stock by a decade at least). There are going to be better, newer surplus EMUs available for potential conversion.

Thirdly, none of these units have toilet facilities.

[JDW]

A picture has appeared on wnxx  showing the inner end painted yellow (allegedly for the second cab) , as well as bodyside cutouts for air intakes.

 

This link may work. http://www.wnxx.com/17/1712/041217/19001.htm

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

I imagine that the yellow end (and possible addition of basic driving controls) would be more useful for testing (running up and down a line like Bo'ness) rather than for any intended main line use as a full-blown locomotive.  But more to the point, am I the only one seeing the GNER logo on the front of the class 26 on the right...?  Do the folk at Bo'ness have plans to replace Stagecoach when they walk away from VTEC in 2020 I wonder...? 

[frobisher]

But more to the point, am I the only one seeing the GNER logo on the front of the class 26 on the right...?

Nope

 

The weird thing is it looks like the DVT is looking like one of those 00 models that have been repainted before fully assembled, and the modeller has used what paint was to hand (sorry class 26, your repaint will have to wait...) and they haven't been too careful about following the lines and "they'll touch that up later"

[cheesysmith]

I don't think the PEP derived units are likely to be a good candidate for updating this way.Firstly, you've got two driving motors in each set already, from which you would have to remove the traction motors and the associated underframe gubbins.Secondly, these are the oldest EMUs still in operation (predating most of the MK3 dervived stock by a decade at least). There are going to be better, newer surplus EMUs available for potential conversion.Thirdly, none of these units have toilet facilities.

I used the PEP designed stock for several reasons.

 

1. They are the last train built with a separate under frame. The more modern stock is built as a monocock construction. The bodies of these is built with a upwards deflection so that when the heavy bits are attached it is pulled level. The newer units with the Mk3 derived bodies would need more work to fit the under floor power train to. BREL even used different gauge steel in the different bodies, making the dry weight of the body shells and the strength of the body for what it was designed. Look at how long it is taking brush to release the 769 conversion. The older PEP stock would actually be easier as the motor/driving cars already had the heavy bits under them, and all you would be doing is replacing one bit of under floor equipment with another.

 

2. Which ever train you chose to rebuild is going to need the new disabled "super bog" anyway. So having a bog fitted already or not makes no difference. The design of the PEP units probably makes this easier as the body could be cut and rebuild after, allowing you to fit a make off site one piece plug and play bog.

 

3. Yes there are newer trains. But having seen the amount of new steel needed for the 150s for corrosion repairs (and they are a newer train), I wounded what these newer steel bodied units are hiding under the shiny paint?

 

4. A 3 coach PEP unit, with 2 powered driving cars and a unpowered centre car with bog would be the same length as a 4 car 142. So you could replace 4 car 142 with 3 car PEP without the need to lengthen any platforms.

 

5. The PEP stock is going to be free very soon. The replacement stock is already being delivered (cross rail for the 315) or due shortly (Siemens replacements for the 313). The need for new diesel units is needed now, due to the impending disablility laws. These would at least allow you some time to rebuild them and get them into service before the deadline, without the problem of releasing trains already needed in service to be withdrawn from service LNG enough to get rebuilt. (thinking of things like the Wales franchise).

 

6. Some one is going to ask why I'm suggesting using such old trains for the rebuilding. Well, these already have grandfather right to run on the network. The timeing of when they will be release for conversion fits. The construction of them makes them more suitable for rebuilding. If people can suggest using rebuild tube trains for Wales, these must be a better idea, and history has proved that these have stood upto accident pretty well in the past.

[frobisher]

Relatively speaking, the PEP derived units would require an extensive rebuild which the MK3 units would not to the same extent, and the fact that this prototype is being built on a MK3 derived vehicle would probably help.

 

The availability of the 321/322's is pretty much the same as the PEPs in any case, and any grandfather rights would be identical for crash worthiness etc, but as was pointed out up the page, new traction package requires re-certification in any case.

[luckymucklebackit]

Just to bring this up to date, the "loco" is nearing completion at Bo,ness and is expected to be on display at the Bo'ness Winter Diesel Gala on 29th December.  Photo here 

 

http://www.wnxx.com/17/1712/041217/19001.htm

 

The JCBDVT

 

Jim