Midland Main Line Electrification

[Glorious NSE]

Sorry I disagree, it doesn't rule out Chiltern picking up more modern stock cascaded from electrification elsewhere to replace them...and at the Birmingham end virtually all the resident DMU fleet will be just 11 years old, so retaining DMUs in 2022 on the local services at the Birmingham end is not an impossibility by any means...

 

But then neither is wiring that and cascading them somewhere else.

[Edwin_m]

I think I've posted somewhere else about DMUs, and at the risk of repeating myself, it is getting impossible to fit the power train and the mandated fume cleaning units under the floor of a carriage, therefore DMUs are a near impossibility, hence electrification.

 

This is certainly a factor. I don't think any of the current DMU designs can be produced any more, presumably not even the class 172 which makes me wonder why Bombardier bothered developing it to sell such a small number! It is possible that someone will think of a new way of meeting the regulations without using so much space, otherwise we might be back to some of the equipment going above floor level.

 

The other factor is that leasing companies have to be reasonably confident that a train will be used and paid for over its full lifetime before they shell out to have it built. With so much electrification in prospect there is a fear that DMUs will be made redundant - possibly a self-fulfilling prophecy if one of the reasons for electrification is the difficulty of getting more DMUs! Perhaps part of the answer is for new DMUs to be designed for easy conversion to EMUs?

[frobisher]

This is certainly a factor. I don't think any of the current DMU designs can be produced any more, presumably not even the class 172 which makes me wonder why Bombardier bothered developing it to sell such a small number! It is possible that someone will think of a new way of meeting the regulations without using so much space, otherwise we might be back to some of the equipment going above floor level.

 

So are the bi-mode IEPs getting some form of exemption (unlikely) or is it just that it's a more expensive solution than mechanical/hydraulic transmission?

[Edwin_m]

Hadn't thought of that one! I think they must have to comply, as the type of transmission used doesn't affect the emissions and I can't see the EU bending over backwards to derogate from their standard for the benefit of the Japanese...

 

However it's a 25m vehicle (or has that changed as well?) so 2m longer than the 172 etc, which may give them the bit of underfloor space they need.

[62613]

Manchester has been able to claim that since the 60s.

 

So, when was manchester without wires. I dont mean some lines, i mean non at all? :-)

well the last time Manchester was without wires must be 1931 (MSJ&A Electrification)

[Edwin_m]

That's another very good question to which we have no answer.

[chrisf]

142's for a refurb?

 

Yes, if that involves dismantling them and making Leyland National buses from the bits.

 

Chris

[Glorious NSE]

The announced wirings and resulting cascades will cull some I'm sure, as I'm sure they will be first on the hitlists for operators, but I wouldn't bet against there still being some running a decade from now - they (as well as almost any other BR era stock) will need some heavy work for DDA compliance if they are to finish the decade apparently, but with passenger growth continuing I'm not sure electrification will cascade stuff fast enough to cull all pacers *and* keep up with demand.

 

We've had many out of use before, but gradually brought back as demand increased...as you say a Pacer is still better than no train...

[Suzie]

Since DMUs nowadays tend not to have corridor connections at the ends the use of an engine compartment behind one of the cabs like a thumper or 210 with electric transmission should not be a show stopper. DMUs tend to be shorter formations than EMUs and have lower density passenger accommodation than EMUs, so there is some scope to make room.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Since DMUs nowadays tend not to have corridor connections at the ends the use of an engine compartment behind one of the cabs like a thumper or 210 with electric transmission should not be a show stopper. DMUs tend to be shorter formations than EMUs and have lower density passenger accommodation than EMUs, so there is some scope to make room.

 

Above floor engines - a good idea in many ways. But track access charging regime works against it.

[Rugd1022]

I look at that spot practically every day (assuming I'm awake - unlike you lads, I'm on the cushions!). Given the proximity of the adjacent Aston Church Road (that the chord presumably crossed by way of a bridge, dropping at the same time and curving to meet the Castle Brom line), I can't ever quite picture how the chord must've looked in my mind's eye. You can see the shape of the railway boundary on the lower route though, which does suggest a curve once diverged at this point.

 

By chance this morning I found the June 2008 'Traction' article on the WCML diversions, which shows the old connecting chord from the Stetchford-Aston line down onto the Midland at Washwood Heath... it's shown intact in two shots taken by John Dagley-Morris on 18/2/62 and looks quite sharp and steep.

 

Whether or not it could be reinstated to modern standards is another matter, but I think it would be a very useful link, even as a single line speed restricted curve.

 

[For the record and if anyone's interested, the locos seen in John's article are D1, D215, D217, D218, D225, D297, D298, D301, D308, D310, D334, D341, D359 and D370, photographed between March 1961 and July 1962 on various lines around the Brum area )

[Godders]

Above floor engines - a good idea in many ways. But track access charging regime works against it.

 

Does it make a difference whether the engine(s) are above or below floor, surely axle weight is the ruling factor.

 

Cheers Godders

[Joseph_Pestell]

Does it make a difference whether the engine(s) are above or below floor, surely axle weight is the ruling factor.

 

Cheers Godders

 

If you put the engine above floor:

1) that's less space for seats, so you may need an extra carriage in the set;

2) one big engine rather than several small ones, so higher maximum axle weight (same problem as works against loco-hauled/pushed trains)

[The Stationmaster]

If you put the engine above floor:

1) that's less space for seats, so you may need an extra carriage in the set;

2) one big engine rather than several small ones, so higher maximum axle weight (same problem as works against loco-hauled/pushed trains)

Yes, but with modern lightweight engines we are hardly talking about massive axleloads anyway.

 

In comparison, albeit electrically powered, TGVs seem to manage quite well at at 300kph day-in-day-out shoving out 5,000hp plus from a 68.5 tonne power car and knocking out over 16,000hp through 6 bogies. Distributed power is all well and good if it does not impact on the passenger environment and regrettably there doesn't seem yet to have been a diesel train of that sort built to British loading gauge where you don't know there's a few hundred horsepower bashing away under your seat.

 

Well insulated distributed electric traction is undoubtedly a good thing and is generally not a problem for the passenger environment.

 

Incidentally as far as above body engines are concerned the rolling of the Hampshire etc units showed how it could noticeably impinge on the passenger although equally the Blue Pullman units showed just as well how it could be managed not to impinge

[Fenman]

I would appreciate it if you could direct me to any cost benefit report/study that includes the full financial picture. The reports I can find seem to omit capital costs and never ever allow for overruns.

 

I can't answer your specific question, but here's a sidelight on your assumption that projects "never allow for overruns". The Treasury got so fed up with public-sector capital projects over-running that, for most public sector bodies, you now have to include in the budget bid not only a massive contingency (20% is not unusual) but also a +/-30% "optimism bias". Effectively, most public-funded capital projects have to be pitched at double the anticipated cost.

 

Unsurprisingly, this means many excellent projects end up looking like poor value-for-money, and the efficient project delivery bodies are penalised as a result of the incompetence, game-playing or plain bad luck of the delivery bodies with a poor track record. It also means the public doesn't get a raft of capital projects that, on a more reasonable basis, would be good value.

 

Paul

[Joseph_Pestell]

I did not say that I favour underfloor diesel engines - just that the track access regime in the UK favours them. The seats lost are probably more important factor than the increased axle-weight. Would be interesting to do the maths and work out at what mileage the greater access costs outweigh the fuel and maintenance savings of having fewer engines. 5-car voyager (with a lot of space lost behind the cab anyway) or 6-car Blue Pullman lookalike? I know which one I would rather travel in.

[The Stationmaster]

I did not say that I favour underfloor diesel engines - just that the track access regime in the UK favours them. The seats lost are probably more important factor than the increased axle-weight. Would be interesting to do the maths and work out at what mileage the greater access costs outweigh the fuel and maintenance savings of having fewer engines. 5-car voyager (with a lot of space lost behind the cab anyway) or 6-car Blue Pullman lookalike? I know which one I would rather travel in.

Does the track access regime favour underfloor engines?

 

I would think it is a bit more complex than that as the available figures seem to work in a peculiar fashion which I suspect relates to far more than the presence or otherwise of an engine under the floor and takes into account wheel/rail interface behaviour (hence some older coaches have a higher figure than more modern dmu vehicles with improved suspension). An oddity is that the charge for a Class 121 SPC is lower than that of any hauled coaches which I suspect relates to far more than having an underfloor engine and must relate to speed and mileage. It is thus not easy to draw direct comparisons without the full information - is that in the public domain?

Edited August 3, 2012 by The Stationmaster

[Joseph_Pestell]

Does the track access regime favour underfloor engines?

 

I would think it is a bit more complex than that as the available figures seem to work in a peculiar fashion which I suspect relates to far more than the presence or otherwise of an engine under the floor and takes into account wheel/rail interface behaviour (hence some older coaches have a higher figure than more modern dmu vehicles with improved suspension). An oddity is that the charge for a Class 121 SPC is lower than that of any hauled coaches which I suspect relates to far more than having an underfloor engine and must relate to speed and mileage. It is thus not easy to draw direct comparisons without the full information - is that in the public domain?

 

I don't think that it's a state secret but probably not that easy to find unless you are a TOC manager. There have been quite a lot of tables and comment on this subject in the Informed Sources (Roger Ford) column of Modern Railways. But I don't keep back numbers so I can't quote dates.

 

Ian Walmsley (who works IIRC for Porterbrook) has also written a lot about this over the last couple of years. He strongly advocates loco + carriages as a much better option.

[Ohmisterporter]

IIan Walmsley (who works IIRC for Porterbrook) has also written a lot about this over the last couple of years. He strongly advocates loco + carriages as a much better option.

 

That would certainly cheer up the traction spotters among us.

[jamie92208]

I read both Ford and Walmsely's coumns avidly. I can't rmemebr the exact quote but apparently Chiltern have done some serious work and found that with 5 or more coaches the loco plus coaches option is more economical which is why they have gone to the 67 hauled Mark 3's for the fast trains to |Brimingham. Also it's a lot easier to add an extra coach.

 

Jamie

Edited August 3, 2012 by jamie92208

[The Stationmaster]

I found some info after doing a spot of delving but it is at at 2009/10 prices. Using the Chiltern example a Class 67 was 43.72p/mile and a Mk3 coach (if I'm reading the numbers correctly) was 6.53p/mile while a Mk3 DVT was 10.6p/mile. In contrast a Class 221 was 12.09p/mile/vehicle ands Cl.222 was 10.55p/mile/vehicle.

 

But that is where the easy bit ends and the work begins because there is then the question of fuel consumption and other consumables, maintenance costs, hire costs and so on and all of that can possibly make a considerable difference as far as an operator is concerned before one even looks at the problems that result from tucking your diesel engines underneath the coaches. NR's figures clearly seem to take into account dynamic track forces etc but I do wonder if they are in many cases more theoretical than actual based with some very narrow differences between locos with 4 wheel bogies compared with those with 6 wheel bogies and with a difference, for example between the figures for Cl. 165 and Cl. 166 dmus (of 0.32p/mile!).

[Shed]

So now the tracks been soted for 125mph, whn do the wires start going up?

[ess1uk]

So now the tracks been soted for 125mph, whn do the wires start going up?

Guess when they have finished the GWML?

Whenever that is?

[The Stationmaster]

Guess when they have finished the GWML?

Whenever that is?

Probably.  There are clearly considerable resourcing problems on the GWML scheme which is hardly surprising when we haven't seen any major mainline electrification schemes for a long time.  Thus the GWML scheme (and no doubt Manchester- Liverpool) is bearing the brunt of training a new workforce more or less from scratch and I bet they won't be inclined to train excess numbers - hence they will hopefully move labour and plant from one major scheme to the next one.

[RJS1977]

Any delays to the MML work at least give the GCR more time for fundraising!