New panto cars for voyagers - why just one?

[nightstar.train]

From what i've been reading it seems that the extra pantograph car for the Voyagers is almost certain. I like this, it is very good to have some hybrid trains using all the wires they run under, but it has got me wondering. Why just ONE extra coach? I understand that most Cross Country services are over crowded. If they have the units they can couple two together to make 8, 9 or 10 cars, but with the extra coach these become 10, 11 or 12. Now i doubt most platforms can fit these lengths so i think we will see less doubling up of units. So if the Voyager lines are being restarted why not build more coaches and make them all 8 or 9 coaches long? You get a massive and fairly simple capacity increase. I know it might require a bigger transformer for the pantograph car, and probably more engines in the others, but this is surely only a matter of will and money. You also eliminate any need to couple two together and might get some spare trains for new/re-instated services, or to add extra services on the busiest routes.

Am i missing something with this proposal that makes it unworkable, or is it just a lack of common sense at DaFT and the ROSCOs?

[Black Sheep]

are the platforms on it's route long enough to take two more cars?

 

i'm surprised they're only putting one car in, I thought voyagers shared bogies along the length instead of two bogies per coach

[Edwin_m]

One reason may be that the four or five diesel engines provide more power than necessary and can easily cope with one extra coach, but more than that and some of the new coaches might need diesel engines as suggested. As well as the complication of building two types, they would have to redesign the diesel power pack to comply with latest emissions standards and from what I read this involves quite a lot of extra kit. You might also need a second transformer.

 

I suspect a pair of six-car units would be OK at most Cross Country stations, and if it wasn't then there is the option of using five-car sets on diagrams that ran coupled together on any problem routes. However others will have a better view on this (and I'm not going off to start checking them all now!).

 

The Voyager has two bogies per coach like all other current passenger trains in the UK.

[pete_mcfarlane]

If the Voyagers have selective door opening (like the Meridiens) then it shouldn't be a problem if they become too long for certain stations. You just don't open some of the doors.

[AMJ]

The Voyager has two bogies per coach like all other current passenger trains in the UK.

Eurostars are articulated with each vehicle sharing a bogie with the adjacent vehicle.

 

From my understanding the 'Electric car' for the Voyagers will provide the same electrical power as would be supplied by the diesels in the rest of the train.

[Supaned]

As it happens , I had a chat to the XC Production Director about this at a forum last week.

 

The intention is to order 35 intermediate pantograph vehicles - the equates to 34 cars to make the 220 fleet up to 5 car sets , and 1 car to make the "odd" 221 , 221141 up to a 5 car. In effect this will give a uniform 5 car fleet.

 

XC's timetable is based around a maximum train length of 5 cars for using certain platforms or halves of platforms - whilst the trains can run as longer sets , this can impact on performance due to possibly needing re-platforming and having to wait for that platform to become available.

 

As I understand , the "new" pantograph car will only have a transformer underneath , there is enough power in the existing diesels to cope with the unpowered car. The conversion will involve running a bus line through the train to feed all the traction power converters from the transformer output , and the traction converters themselves need to be changed to meet the latest electronic emissions standards. Also the train's computer system needs converting.

 

The estimate is that the initial conversion will take around 12 months to complete , then it will require testing and driver training prior to entering scheduled service.

[Kris]

As it happens , I had a chat to the XC Production Director about this at a forum last week.

 

The intention is to order 35 intermediate pantograph vehicles - the equates to 34 cars to make the 220 fleet up to 5 car sets , and 1 car to make the "odd" 221 , 221141 up to a 5 car. In effect this will give a uniform 5 car fleet.

 

XC's timetable is based around a maximum train length of 5 cars for using certain platforms or halves of platforms - whilst the trains can run as longer sets , this can impact on performance due to possibly needing re-platforming and having to wait for that platform to become available.

 

As I understand , the "new" pantograph car will only have a transformer underneath , there is enough power in the existing diesels to cope with the unpowered car. The conversion will involve running a bus line through the train to feed all the traction power converters from the transformer output , and the traction converters themselves need to be changed to meet the latest electronic emissions standards. Also the train's computer system needs converting.

 

The estimate is that the initial conversion will take around 12 months to complete , then it will require testing and driver training prior to entering scheduled service.

 

Are these conversions of existing coaches or new builds? If they are new builds what will happen to the coaches that will be replaced?

[Edwin_m]

Thanks for this Supaned.

 

As Kris points out, this implies no lengthening of the 221 fleet. Will these stay as all-diesel or are some of the 221 cars converted from diesel to electric?

 

I guess this is still far from certain to happen!

[Fat Controller]

Are these conversions of existing coaches or new builds? If they are new builds what will happen to the coaches that will be replaced?

They are new-build, so that 4-car sets will become 5-car. These are the longest that can be handled in the West-end bays at Reading, which is a key node for the Cross-Country service.

[Karhedron]

They are new-build, so that 4-car sets will become 5-car. These are the longest that can be handled in the West-end bays at Reading, which is a key node for the Cross-Country service.

Really? Every time I have taken a Voyager to Reading they have used one of the main platforms (8 for the northbound services and 4 for southbound). Maybe this si because I have only used them at weekends. Do they normally use the west bays on the weekdays?

[Ron Ron Ron]

....These are the longest that can be handled in the West-end bays at Reading, which is a key node for the Cross-Country service.

Really? Every time I have taken a Voyager to Reading they have used one of the main platforms (8 for the northbound services and 4 for southbound). Maybe this si because I have only used them at weekends. Do they normally use the west bays on the weekdays?

 

I'm also puzzled by the mention of the west-end bays at Reading, not only on this forum, but on others.

Like Karhedron, every time I've travelled on a XC Voyager service (both when it was Virgin and now with Arriva ) the train has always used the through mainline platforms.

 

Admittedly I've only used the service about 8 times over the last 5 years or so, and always on a through service to/from Bournemouth.

Is there anyone who can clarify platform usage in more recent times (pre-the re-building programme) ?

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

The Reading terminators have long used either No 7 bay (now out of use, presumably as part of the Platform 5/8 - old numbers - island works for the new 'footbridge' thingy) or No.3 bay (where the platform was slightly altered for them).

 

The trains heading down to, and from, the Basingstoke direction normally reverse in (old) No. 8 but occasionally have used (old No.s) 5 & 9. And that has been the pattern ever since the Voyager services were introduced with - usually - the half hourly interval fill-in trains terminating at Reading, albeit with the northern end of that service varying (currently I think, without checking, that it's York for most of them).

 

Incidentally converting the 220s to 5 car formations will not make them wholly compatible with the 221s as the latter have tilt and are thus permitted to run at higher speed in some places - although that doesn't apply to most of the Cross-Country network of course.

[Ron Ron Ron]

The trains heading down to, and from, the Basingstoke direction normally reverse in (old) No. 8 but occasionally have used (old No.s) 5 & 9.

 

Thanks Mike. I had an idea it would be you coming to the rescue on this question.

Off the top of my head, 5, 8 & 9 were the platforms used on all occasions.

 

Incidentally converting the 220s to 5 car formations will not make them wholly compatible with the 221s as the latter have tilt and are thus permitted to run at higher speed in some places - although that doesn't apply to most of the Cross-Country network of course.

 

I think the compatibility point, is regards passenger capacity and train lengths, rather than the tilt aspect.

Also bear in mind that XC have long since disabled the tilt operation on their fleet of 221's and I suspect they no longer have a performance advantage over the 220's.

 

.

[Simon_R]

Running in pure electric mode the Voyagers might almost verge on being pleasant to travel on. it will certainly be a nice change from the constant noise and vibrations currently produced by the underfloor engines. This assumes the engine will actually be shut off when traveling on OHL and not just left idling?

If this is sucessful on XC will MML and 1st introduce it on some of their into London services that travel at least part of the way under the wires? The Midland line is OHL'd for about half of the way to Leicester, and the Hull services run under the wires on the ECML for a large portion of their route. Would virgin adopt it for the hollyhead service? Electric to Crewe then diesel across Wales?

 

Once there is an abundance of electric motive power (something curently desperatly lacking in the UK) with the DFT start expanding the OHL network? It would make sence as they can currently use the 'what would they run under it anyway?' excuse siting that most TOC's have a majority of diesel traction. Then this would pave the way for more european traction to make it's way here and possible a new fleet of DBS electrics to compliment/replace the 90/92's

 

How about an APT'esk electric power car for the HST's? Convert a MK3 into a convertor/power car using class 92 traction gear. The consist is already ridgid coupled and has the tmd connection running through the train to drive the trailing power car, couldn't that be used to contol and electric traction car as well?

 

Surely this is all considerably cheaper thana consult/design/build of a whole new fleet of trains. It gives life extensions to the existing investments and ticks all of the enviromemt boxes, whilst offering considerable potential fuel savings. If existing technology was used ie. Cl91 equiptment the design element is reduced drastically. Network rail already have a panto equipt Mk3 in the NMT so it can certainly be engineered in, infactthat work has already been done. The CL12 has more than sufficent power to shove an HST along at the full 125 line speed.

This would then lead into OHL on the GW etc

[Kris]

Once there is an abundance of electric motive power (something curently desperatly lacking in the UK) with the DFT start expanding the OHL network? It would make sence as they can currently use the ;what would they run under it anyway?' excuse siting that most TOC's have a majority of diesel traction. Then this would pave the way for more european traction to make it's way here

 

The european stuff would need to be shrunk or the UK loading gauge expanded for most of the European traction to make it's way onto the rails in the UK (HS1 excepted).

[Simon_R]

From various articles in the railway press I believe there is an intention to fix the loading gauge on at least some of the major routes to enable the larger intermodals to run through anyway. I was just thinking euro electrics in terms of buying a product, which seems to be the current trend, rather than having to design an entirly new loco.

[DavidB]

The Reading terminators have long used either No 7 bay (now out of use, presumably as part of the Platform 5/8 - old numbers - island works for the new 'footbridge' thingy) or No.3 bay (where the platform was slightly altered for them).

 

The trains heading down to, and from, the Basingstoke direction normally reverse in (old) No. 8 but occasionally have used (old No.s) 5 & 9. And that has been the pattern ever since the Voyager services were introduced with - usually - the half hourly interval fill-in trains terminating at Reading, albeit with the northern end of that service varying (currently I think, without checking, that it's York for most of them).

 

There's an interesting debate on the First Great Western Coffee Shop forum http://www.firstgrea...?topic=6405.555 about the problems now facing the Thames Valley Signalling Centre team following the closure of the old P7 bay. Apparently the new standard pattern (with a few exceptions) is for the through Southampton-Newcastle services to reverse in No 3 bay, the through Bomo - Manchester services to reverse in the old P5/P8 and the terminators to layover in P3. However, if there are any problems elsewhere leading to XC services presenting at Reading late or out of sequence, the signalling team has virtually no spare capacity to play with.

 

David

[Ron Ron Ron]

From various articles in the railway press I believe there is an intention to fix the loading gauge on at least some of the major routes to enable the larger intermodals to run through anyway.....

 

Work on loading gauge enhancement has been going on for quite a while, Simon. However that won't be of any help with regards to European mainland stock being useable in the UK.

One of the major issues being platform clearances.

 

.

[pete_mcfarlane]

How about an APT'esk electric power car for the HST's? Convert a MK3 into a convertor/power car using class 92 traction gear. The consist is already ridgid coupled and has the tmd connection running through the train to drive the trailing power car, couldn't that be used to contol and electric traction car as well?

 

Surely this is all considerably cheaper thana consult/design/build of a whole new fleet of trains.

I'd say it would be more expensive, as you have to pay for the HST conversions now plus the cost of the new trains in a few years time (given the limited life left in the HSTs). There comes a point where it's more cost effective to buy new.

[Simon_R]

Since when has anyone in authority considered the long term cost of anything? It's all about balancing the books.

A million quid a pop for an hst electric verses what? 50 million per set for a new train would look much nicer on the balance sheet. If they where planning on scrapping the Hst's any time soon why has pretty much the entire national fleet been re-engined over the past few years?

 

I think the cross rail decision has shown us that it's less about polatics these days and more about the money

[Kris]

If they where planning on scrapping the Hst's any time soon why has pretty much the entire national fleet been re-engined over the past few years?

 

If they hadn't re engineered them they would have been falling by the wayside already.

[Simon_R]

They were anyway but someone decided it would be a good idea to pump a chunk of money into what was essentially a mid life rebuild. If DBS did the same with the 60's people would expect to get another 20 years out of them. As it looks like we have another 20 years of HST's surely a short term measure would be to find some way of el;ectrically powering them. There was the Hitachi hybrid concept but that only went part of the way. Ideally something like the HST with a 91 on that ran in the late 80's on the ECML before the MK4's arrived but the single power car wouldn't have the grunt to drag the whole thing all the way to Penzanze and keep to time.(plus there aren'tany spare 91's lying around and the 90's are blowing up)

Theres a lot can be done with the old MK3 shells (look at the work they did on the Wrexham and Shrop sets! Full bare metal rebuilds) and theres no shortage of donors around if you consider sleepers and buffets (it wouldn't need any windows, just a central corriodor for passengers to pass through as per the 91 loco). Use existing technology from existing suppliers, get someone like wabtec to build it (or whoever owns them now) and you have a plug in electric.

 

Just consider that 20 years ago diesel was 35p a litre, its now £1.45, Thats roughly 400% more, so in another 20 years it will be £7.25 a litre Thats £25k per fill up per loco? £50k a day just for fuel!

[Supaned]

back to the original subject.

 

XC 22x units do not have selective door opening, this was planned for working through to Gatwick Airport , but union disputes put paid to that idea.

 

The electric vehicles will be a new build. I believe the finance is not available to convert the entire fleet including 221s as yet. As NR push electrification further across the network , there will be a more pressing business case for dual power traction and the perhaps the 221s will gain an electric car as well - I honestly don't know if this will mean extending them to 6 car units or displacing a car to go elsewhere , and I don't think there is a definitive answer to that, so any speculation is entirely pointless.

 

It is correct that XC have removed the tilt equipment from class 221s. This is the main reason that their reliability has vastly increased , as the tilt gear was, to say the least , problematic. There is no real performance issue now that the tilt has been isolated. The few sections of line where a higher speed is permitted are offset by not having to comply with the TASS tilt control system , which caused more delays than it was intended to remove on certain routes due to how it functioned when approaching / leaving speed restrictions.

 

regarding Reading , I do think it was a bit short sighted taking out bay platform 7 so early on , but evidently there was a need to do so ; on a weekend when the relief lines have been closed there has been a lot of congestion , compounded by late running by both XC and FGW - I think the timetable planners were a bit over optimistic.

 

I suppose the main thing about these extra vehicles is that they do address the issue of lack of capacity on XC , and there is an obvious environmental benefit - by my rough calculations each unit would probably use a third less diesel per unit per day based on the current diagramming , so in effect the coaches will pay for themselves at some point .

[APOLLO]

Just consider that 20 years ago diesel was 35p a litre, its now £1.45, Thats roughly 400% more, so in another 20 years it will be £7.25 a litre Thats £25k per fill up per loco? £50k a day just for fuel!

 

It probably will be far worse than that - diesel / petrol may NOT be readily availiable in 20 years time. (google Peak Oil, hubberts curve).

 

We need to electrify ALL our railways and build tidal barrages (severn, Morecambe Bay etc).

 

Panto cars for voyagers - can't come soon enough.

 

Brit15

[Poor Old Bruce]

While it would be nice to ride in a Voyager coach that didn't rattle like a Cravens DMU, why would you want to put pantographs on a train which does most of its mileage away from OHE?