ETCS, the 2012 Olympics, IEP & Intercity 225

[Rhydgaled]

Loco changes and timings. Refer to Ipswich, May 85 to May 87. 86s worked from london to Ipswich and then came off to be replaced with 47s for the rest of the journey to Norwich. Timings allowed were 12 minutes on the Up road, and 8 minutes on the Down. I still have timetables somewhere to prove this but know it as I was one of the guys doing those loco changeovers day in and day out. (also seen in model form on Dagworth!)

Were there DVTs at one end of these trains, or did the locos run round the train at the end of the line? I ask this because I'm wondering about the possiblity of running a class 57 (as I understand it basiclly an upgraded 47) on a train with a DVT (the WAG train (Cardiff - Holyhead) but with an added DVT and slightly different livery) on my layout if I ever get round to building it.

 

is this the reason that they were running a test train at night on the east coast main line with a set of Mk4s with a 91 at both ends? i did wonder at the time when i seen the pictures what the test was all about.

Again, I would like to see pictures/videos of this event. Anyone know where on the web I could find such things?

 

The timescales sound well out of kilter. The version of ERTMS on the Cambrian (which is basically still only a trial) should, hopefully, now be operational next year, probably.

Have they really not finished getting that operational? I've read this has been delayed to 2009, which means it should have had it's (seemingly customary for projects these days) delay and be operational by now.

 

I've just had a thought about the GWML, if what I discovered earlier about signalling changes being required before electrification is correct and the timescale of 2017 - 2019 for ERTMS/ETCS installation they are either going to have to do electification at the same time or after the ERTMS/ETCS (or make non-ERTMS/ETCS modifcations to signaling at an earlier date). If you discount that bit in brackets it reveals a gap between the 2016 date given for the death of the Intercity 125s and the electrification, sounds like a problem to me.

 

Assuming the GWML project (both ERTMS/ETCS installation & electrification) is supposed to be complete by 1019 and they start from the Paddington end in 2017 they should have half the line done by the half-way point (2018). Now, assuming the 225s are 15 years younger than the 125s and their expected life is the same as the 125s they will be going till 2031. Now when half the GWML is upgraded (1018) the 225s should be able to start running, at 140mph, over that half of the line. That (2018 - 2031) makes about 12 years of 140mph running, plenty of time to make the money spent on installing ETCS/ERTMS in the 225s worthwhile. Technology may also have moved on by 2031 to the extent that a very much better replacement train for the 225s than one available now, hell by then life on earth might be dead from global warming or somthing and we wouldn't need a replacement.

 

So, my plan as it stands (based on what I've found is supposed to be happening). Solutions to the problems greatfully accepted:

 

• December 2011 - 2 to 4 Intercity 225s fitted with ERTMS/ETCS and re-liveried (prefrably in Intercity Swallow livery but to save costs simply putting the National Express version of the viynals back on with plain white over the National Express logo (so only the old 'East Coast' text remains (not the purple new east coast logo) would do
• January 2012 - ERTMS/ETCS fitted Intercity 225s move to High Speed 1 and commence 140mph service (Ashford - St Pancras or Ashford - York (via St Pancras)) ready for the Olympics
• Problem - replacment trains for the 2 to 4 225s needed
• 2013 - Pre-series IEP/SET trains due on the ECML, if they do arrive they'll probablly be needed to replace 125s though, so the problem above still won't be resolved
• 2017 - GWML upgrade starts - If the IEP goes ahead SET trains should have replaced all ECML 125s by this time, allowing the youngest of the 125 fleet (already past their death date) to replace the older ones. Some ECML 225s might be displaced too, allowing them to undergo ERTMS/ETCS fittment, from now on 225 ERTMS/ETCS fittment is carried out when most convinent
• Mid 2018 - GWML upgrade reaches at least Reading, possibly Swindon - the HS1 225s are moved to Paddington - Reading/Swindon services. (By this time maybe the railways will have been re-nationalised and they'll get to keep Swallow livery, I can only hope. (It isn't as impossible an idea as you might think, the Green party say they would re-nationalise the railways if they come to power. As always with polititions though, I expect (like the GWML electrification and IEP/SET) that most would only belive that when they see it.
• Possible Problem - with 225 services unable to pass Reading or Swindon there could be insufficent trains further along the line
• By December 2019 - GWML upgrade complete to Bristol & Swansea, all other 225s move to GWML, full replacment of ECML intercity fleet complete. All 30 (31?) 225s running Paddington-Bristol and maybe Paddington - Swansea services.

[vc-10]

Or... The Javelins run on HS1 (as they're designed for) and the 225s stay on the ECML until the SETs are ready? Once the OHLE (maybe an upgrade!) and the ETCS has been fitted on the ECML then the 225s can be fitted with ETCS until all the SETS are ready, and then passed on to the GWML if it's ready and not got SETS yet.

 

Will the SETs replace the Pendos? If the Pendos could be fitted with ETCS along with the WCML then the Pendos could operate at their design speed of 140mph.

 

How simple is fitting ETCS to a train? Is it as simple as fitting a sensor and the computer box in the cab? The refurbished 225s have a slot for the equipment don't they?

[Edwin_m]

The Ipswich changes were replacing a loco on the same end of the train so (in principle) coupling one end at the same time as uncoupling at the other should be quicker. Also this was old fashioned couplings with somebody needing to climb down to do the coupler hook and the brake pipes, whereas a modern coupler does all this at the press of a button. As people have pointed out, you need to specify that the software doesn't spend several minutes sorting itself out when this happens!

 

By the way I don't think 57s can talk to DVTs, nor do they have the automatic fire system that is needed for a loco to have engine running at the back of a train.

[The Stationmaster]

 

I've just had a thought about the GWML, if what I discovered earlier about signalling changes being required before electrification is correct and the timescale of 2017 - 2019 for ERTMS/ETCS installation they are either going to have to do electification at the same time or after the ERTMS/ETCS (or make non-ERTMS/ETCS modifcations to signaling at an earlier date). If you discount that bit in brackets it reveals a gap between the 2016 date given for the death of the Intercity 125s and the electrification, sounds like a problem to me.

 

Assuming the GWML project (both ERTMS/ETCS installation & electrification) is supposed to be complete by 1019 and they start from the Paddington end in 2017 they should have half the line done by the half-way point (2018). Now, assuming the 225s are 15 years younger than the 125s and their expected life is the same as the 125s they will be going till 2031. Now when half the GWML is upgraded (1018) the 225s should be able to start running, at 140mph, over that half of the line. That (2018 - 2031) makes about 12 years of 140mph running, plenty of time to make the money spent on installing ETCS/ERTMS in the 225s worthwhile. Technology may also have moved on by 2031 to the extent that a very much better replacement train for the 225s than one available now, hell by then life on earth might be dead from global warming or somthing and we wouldn't need a replacement.

 

So, my plan as it stands (based on what I've found is supposed to be happening). Solutions to the problems greatfully accepted:

 

• December 2011 - 2 to 4 Intercity 225s fitted with ERTMS/ETCS and re-liveried (prefrably in Intercity Swallow livery but to save costs simply putting the National Express version of the viynals back on with plain white over the National Express logo (so only the old 'East Coast' text remains (not the purple new east coast logo) would do
• January 2012 - ERTMS/ETCS fitted Intercity 225s move to High Speed 1 and commence 140mph service (Ashford - St Pancras or Ashford - York (via St Pancras)) ready for the Olympics
• Problem - replacment trains for the 2 to 4 225s needed
• 2013 - Pre-series IEP/SET trains due on the ECML, if they do arrive they'll probablly be needed to replace 125s though, so the problem above still won't be resolved
• 2017 - GWML upgrade starts - If the IEP goes ahead SET trains should have replaced all ECML 125s by this time, allowing the youngest of the 125 fleet (already past their death date) to replace the older ones. Some ECML 225s might be displaced too, allowing them to undergo ERTMS/ETCS fittment, from now on 225 ERTMS/ETCS fittment is carried out when most convinent
• Mid 2018 - GWML upgrade reaches at least Reading, possibly Swindon - the HS1 225s are moved to Paddington - Reading/Swindon services. (By this time maybe the railways will have been re-nationalised and they'll get to keep Swallow livery, I can only hope. (It isn't as impossible an idea as you might think, the Green party say they would re-nationalise the railways if they come to power. As always with polititions though, I expect (like the GWML electrification and IEP/SET) that most would only belive that when they see it.
• Possible Problem - with 225 services unable to pass Reading or Swindon there could be insufficent trains further along the line
• By December 2019 - GWML upgrade complete to Bristol & Swansea, all other 225s move to GWML, full replacment of ECML intercity fleet complete. All 30 (31?) 225s running Paddington-Bristol and maybe Paddington - Swansea services.

 

1. GWML resignalling work (with current type of signalling) is already underway in South Wales, Reading station area will, hopefully, be changed over to new control centre between Christmas and New Year 2009/2010.

Hopefully the software going in now will be compatible with whatever sort of ERTMS is added onto the route at a later date.

 

2. I cannot understand your idea of fitting TVM to Class 91s and their DVTs, retrofitting TVM to anything is a major surgery job as far as the driving cabs are concerned because of the (by the standards of now) old-fashioned technology used in the loco part of TVM. I don't know too much about the driving cab layout in either a Class 91 or a Mk4 DVT but suspect the conversion would have to start with a Skilsaw and wire cutters, and would take a long time.

 

3. I can't understand either why you expect IEP (of any sort) to be in service by 2013 - effectively now only (ok = almost 4 years if the trains start running in December that year at the timetable change) when the orders have not yet been placed, the interior fits haven't been specified, and - presumably - there are no detailed drawings in place?

 

Evidence to date in this country suggests that Japanese built trains are very good at working properly 'out of the box' and judging by the stuff I saw in connection with the Hitachi traction package test train the Japanese are extremely good at putting together the paperwork and supporting data (even if their UK 'helpers' were not quite so clever ). But evidence to date is less clear about some aspects of their design in British conditions - witness the early reports of poor riding on the 395s (and that was on top notch track, not the sort of stuff they might encounter elsewhere in Britain). So we don't really know what problems might arise during testing, and that could result in mods which delay delivery.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Will the SETs replace the Pendos? If the Pendos could be fitted with ETCS along with the WCML then the Pendos could operate at their design speed of 140mph.....

It's not intended that SET's will replace Pendolino's on the WCML, although they may eventually run alongside them on other services, either with other TOC's (e.g. Manchester - Scotland following electrification of the whole route) or possibly replacing diesel Voyagers on services run entirely under the wires. There's also scope for Bi-mode operation too (e.g. London - Holyhead).

Remember that only the tilting Pendo's and Super Voyagers can achieve 125 mph on a large part of the WCML. SET's are not tilting trains.

 

In Cab signalling (ERTMS etc,) has other benefits and isn't being introduced purely for the benefit of allowing running at 140 mph. In fact there is a very good debate on whether it's worth all the expense of upgrading just to obtain the marginal benefit in timings that 140 mph running gives. Current thinking seems to suggest that in the UK there is no worthwhile benefit in increasing max line speeds to 140 mph and that it would only be worthwhile making the step up to 170/180 mph and above. That of course would only be available on dedicated High Speed lines.

However, if the necessary improvements are carried out on the ECML (track quadrupalling, grade separated junctions, flyovers, ERTMS, (also does the cheapo OHLE need replacement too?) etc, etc: then 140 mph running may be the best option for higher speed services on some, or all, of the East coast.

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

However, if the necessary improvements are carried out on the ECML (track quadrupalling, grade separated junctions, flyovers, ETCS, (does the cheapo OHLE need replacement too?) etc, etc: then 140 mph running may be the best option for higher speed services on some, or all, of the East coast.

 

 

 

As I understand things there are two potential problems with ECML ohle and associated kit.

 

1. The current 'biggie' (unless someone has recently sorted it?) is the relative weakness of the power supply north of Newcastle which has created a considerable stretch of route where the number of electric trains (or the power they need to draw) has to be restricted to avoiding overloading the supply.

 

2. BR Mk3 ohle was designed to make electrification more attractive by reducing capital costs, and was successful at that. It seems too to be generally fairly successful with heavy usage at the southern end of the ECML and high speed (=125mph) running elsewhere on the route. BUT it is not at all happy with trains using two pantographs (see my earlier post) which means it will never be entirely suitable at high speeds for trains which are also designed to use the Channel Tunnel and which of necessity have two pans in operation in order to get full power wherever they might also be running. (BR Mk1 catenary is, as it happens, excellent in that respect - but there isn't much of it about on potential international routes).

 

I would also question (because I know the relevant sort of engineers have seriously questioned) the ability of BR Mk3 catenary to stand up to sustained high speed running on a regular and frequent basis at speeds above 125 mph. Higher speeds tend to involve the need for greater uplift forces in the pans and BR Mk3 is not up to that as has already been shown on trials. To some extent that problem can be mitigated by careful aerofoil design of the pantograph but I don't know if that would be the solution?

 

Incidentally for running at speeds in excess of 125 mph it is my understanding that in Britain a cab signalling system is considered essential by the powers (various) at be which would add some sort of signalling modification/resignalling to your list above and would - in terms of present developments - mean some version of ERTMS.

[Rhydgaled]

Or... The Javelins run on HS1 (as they're designed for) and the 225s stay on the ECML until the SETs are ready? Once the OHLE (maybe an upgrade!) and the ETCS has been fitted on the ECML then the 225s can be fitted with ETCS until all the SETS are ready, and then passed on to the GWML if it's ready and not got SETS yet.

 

Will the SETs replace the Pendos? If the Pendos could be fitted with ETCS along with the WCML then the Pendos could operate at their design speed of 140mph.

 

How simple is fitting ETCS to a train? Is it as simple as fitting a sensor and the computer box in the cab? The refurbished 225s have a slot for the equipment don't they?

I never said the 2 to 4 225s moved to HS1 would replace the Javelins, just suplement them. Also do you know where you read that the 225s now have a slot for ERTMS/ETCS equipment? because I can't find where I read it.

 

The Ipswich changes were replacing a loco on the same end of the train so (in principle) coupling one end at the same time as uncoupling at the other should be quicker. Also this was old fashioned couplings with somebody needing to climb down to do the coupler hook and the brake pipes, whereas a modern coupler does all this at the press of a button. As people have pointed out, you need to specify that the software doesn't spend several minutes sorting itself out when this happens!

 

By the way I don't think 57s can talk to DVTs, nor do they have the automatic fire system that is needed for a loco to have engine running at the back of a train.

So the changes you were involved with were on trains that did not have a DVT at one end? or does the 47 have an ability to work with DVTs unlike the 57s? Which loco classes can work with Mrk3 DVTs?

 

1. GWML resignalling work (with current type of signalling) is already underway in South Wales, Reading station area will, hopefully, be changed over to new control centre between Christmas and New Year 2009/2010. Hopefully the software going in now will be compatible with whatever sort of ERTMS is added onto the route at a later date.

So they are doing a conventional signalling upgrade (not ERTMS) first to allow electrification? seems a bit strange to spend money twice since they are planning to install ERTMS.

 

2. I cannot understand your idea of fitting TVM to Class 91s and their DVTs, retrofitting TVM to anything is a major surgery job as far as the driving cabs are concerned because of the (by the standards of now) old-fashioned technology used in the loco part of TVM. I don't know too much about the driving cab layout in either a Class 91 or a Mk4 DVT but suspect the conversion would have to start with a Skilsaw and wire cutters, and would take a long time.

I was informed (in this topic) that wouldn't be a problem, that:

The best thing about ERMTS/ETCS is that it has hooks programmed in the software to connect to system-specific modules like the Dutch ATB, Indusi (Germany) and Memor (Belgium). These too are programmed in software (with the required hardware for picking up the signal) and TVM430 is already implemented: the Thalys service runs on ETCS on the HSL from Antwerp to Rotterdam and beyond to Hoofddorp.

If this is incorrect I guess I'll have to drop the HS1 running for the olympics part of the plan.

 

3. I can't understand either why you expect IEP (of any sort) to be in service by 2013 - effectively now only (ok = almost 4 years if the trains start running in December that year at the timetable change) when the orders have not yet been placed, the interior fits haven't been specified, and - presumably - there are no detailed drawings in place?

Well, Wikipeida says pre-series IEP trains are supposed to be in service on the ECML in 2013. After all I've heard in this topic though I'm not sure I really expect them to meet that deadline, but with 3 years they might achive it.

 

In Cab signalling (ETCS etc,) has other benefits and isn't being introduced purely for the benefit of allowing running at 140 mph. In fact there is a very good debate on whether it's worth all the expense of upgrading just to obtain the marginal benefit in timings that 140 mph running gives. Current thinking seems to suggest that in the UK there is no worthwhile benefit in increasing max line speeds to 140 mph and that it would only be worthwhile making the step up to 170/180 mph and above. That of course would only be available on dedicated High Speed lines.

Sure there are other benifits too. As I was saying earlier the documents I've found sound like the EU wanted us to agree to a 2010 deadline for ETRMS installation but that we replied we couldn't do it before 2015, then by the looks of it commited to a much later deadline. The reason for the EU wanting this being setting a Europe-wide stadard for signalling to allow trains and drivers from any EU country to run services from any EU destination to any other EU destination. Of course the system also allows for the gap between trains to be reduced I expect, allowing increased frequency. As for above 140mph running, some parts of the ECML have a 150mph (maybe even 155mph) potential linespeed, and didn't a 225 set a 162mph record on part of the line? (Of course you can't expect 225s to do 160mph in passenger carrying service, but maybe it means the track would be up to the job if faster trains were introuced (regional Eurostar services anyone?, probablly need an OHLE upgrade for that though)).

[phil-b259]

 

[/i]So they are doing a conventional signalling upgrade (not ERTMS) first to allow electrification? seems a bit strange to spend money twice since they are planning to install ERTMS.

 

As Railtrack discovered with the WCML upgrade, if you completley do away with lineside signals that meens EVERY driving cab must be fitted. That includes every DBS / Freightliner / etc loco, DMU, EMU and all on track plant (i.e. tampers, etc) likley to work on the line. The cost of doing this is prohibative on a mixed traffic railway as opposed to a new high speed line altough you can superimpose ERTMS onto a conventionally signalled railway to allow high speed passenger opperations (as would have to happen on the ECML if speeds were raised to 140mph). Basically in cab signalling (be it TVM430 or ERTMS) is best suited to lines upon which there is a limited varity of traction as this minimises the number of cabs and thereby the costs of fitting the on train equipment. I acept there may come a time when the installation of ERTMS is mandatory for new stock but even then given the relative youthfullness of the current freight fleet unless mandatory retrofitting is required, full ERTMS implementation will be a long way off

[The Stationmaster]

As Railtrack discovered with the WCML upgrade, if you completley do away with lineside signals that meens EVERY driving cab must be fitted. That includes every DBS / Freightliner / etc loco, DMU, EMU and all on track plant (i.e. tampers, etc) likley to work on the line. The cost of doing this is prohibative on a mixed traffic railway as opposed to a new high speed line altough you can superimpose ERTMS onto a conventionally signalled railway to allow high speed passenger opperations (as would have to happen on the ECML if speeds were raised to 140mph). Basically in cab signalling (be it TVM430 or ERTMS) is best suited to lines upon which there is a limited varity of traction as this minimises the number of cabs and thereby the costs of fitting the on train equipment. I acept there may come a time when the installation of ERTMS is mandatory for new stock but even then given the relative youthfullness of the current freight fleet unless mandatory retrofitting is required, full ERTMS implementation will be a long way off

 

And in reality there is little need for it to meet any EU type commitment in any case as the only route at the moment which can take UIC gauge trains is HS 1 and that already has TVM 430. But to get to that means first getting through the Tunnel and no doubt the most recent goings on there will be adding weight to those in authority who are not prepared to relax current safety requirements - which in turn means anybody who wants to operate passenger services through the Tunnel will have to first build trains capable of doing so.

[Dagworth]

The Ipswich loco changes were on conventional trains with no DVTs, all locos at the head end. I was one of the guys doing the physical coupling and uncoupling, I could (probably) still hook a loco onto a train quicker than I could descibe doing it, something I'd like to try on a preserved line someday....

 

Andi

[pete_mcfarlane]

The thrust of Ian Walmsley's article in MR was not about the technical prowess or otherwise of the SET but how much cheaper the loco and stock alternative would be. And this from someone who knows about buying trains.

As an impartial observer I get the distinct impression that a lot of the opposition to the SET comes from the fact that it isn't a "proper" train consisting of locos and carriages, and this seems to be partly due to an emotional attachment to loco hauled trains rather than any practical reasons.

 

I struggle to see the reasoning behind this, as we've had express EMUs in this country since the Brighton electrification in 1933.

 

As for the comments about loco hauled trains being "cheaper" - does this take running costs in to account? One of the justifications for distributed power in trains (ie EMUs) is that they use less power when accelerating than an equivalent loco hauled train. Since electricity is getting increasingly expensive, buying a more expensive train that burns less electricity will probably work out cheaper in the long run. "Cheap" equipment usually ends up costing more to run in the long term than the more "expensive" option.

[edin_bry2x]

As for the comments about loco hauled trains being "cheaper" - does this take running costs in to account? One of the justifications for distributed power in trains (ie EMUs) is that they use less power when accelerating than an equivalent loco hauled train. Since electricity is getting increasingly expensive, buying a more expensive train that burns less electricity will probably work out cheaper in the long run. "Cheap" equipment usually ends up costing more to run in the long term than the more "expensive" option.

 

i thought that a train that had distributed power meant that there were traction motors located on some of the bogies of the intermediate cars in a multiple unit all fed power from a power bus that runs the length of the train? arent the Pendolinos that run the Virgin services a distributed power design?

[Ron Ron Ron]

As an impartial observer I get the distinct impression that a lot of the opposition to the SET comes from the fact that it isn't a "proper" train consisting of locos and carriages, and this seems to be partly due to an emotional attachment to loco hauled trains rather than any practical reasons.

 

I struggle to see the reasoning behind this, as we've had express EMUs in this country since the Brighton electrification in 1933.....

That's the way it always seems to me too.

It's not just in this country, but the world over, the loco hauled passenger train has gradually been discarded in favour of the more efficient unit train, in whatever form it takes.

 

 

.....As for the comments about loco hauled trains being "cheaper" - does this take running costs in to account? One of the justifications for distributed power in trains (ie EMUs) is that they use less power when accelerating than an equivalent loco hauled train. Since electricity is getting increasingly expensive, buying a more expensive train that burns less electricity will probably work out cheaper in the long run. "Cheap" equipment usually ends up costing more to run in the long term than the more "expensive" option.

Running costs aren't limited to fuel or electricity, but involve other items such as maintenance etc.

Locos are more expensive to run, heavier on track wear and if not top and tailed or provided with a remote driving cab at the other end of the train, more costly to operate. The loco as part of a fixed (or semi-fixed) set like the IC225 is more effective, but the MU wins out in many respects.

 

 

.....aren't the Pendolinos that run the Virgin services a distributed power design?

Correct, just like the Class 395's and loads of overseas express types.

 

 

.

[vc-10]

I can't remember exactly where I'd heard it, but I'm sure they left a space for something on some train... going mad at 18!

 

Distributed power also means that you can fit more 'coaches' into a platform, as there isn't space taken up with the loco. With today's overcrowded trains, every extra seat is a welcome improvement!

 

Also, regarding the use of non ETCS fitted trains on an ETCS line, would it not be possible to combine the systems? The trains that cannot go faster than 125mph can use the regular signalling, while the ETCS displays the signals in the cabs for those travelling at 125+? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

[Rhydgaled]

Distributed power also means that you can fit more 'coaches' into a platform, as there isn't space taken up with the loco. With today's overcrowded trains, every extra seat is a welcome improvement.

When I saw an Intercity 125 (full 2+8 formation I think) at Whitland on the summer Saturday service to Pembroke Dock it did not fit in the platform and I wondered why they didn't perform the old practice of pulling in twice. Thinking about it now that would make the station stop longer, but I had another idea. The driver doesn't normally have to get out at stations and I'm sure in depots there isn't always a platform to aid the driver into the cab anyway. Therefore I suggest moving the signal at the end of the platform further out (as I see it hardly any problem at all if cab signaling is installed) so the loco can stop outside the platform, leaving the maxium length of platform for passengers.

 

As regards loco-hauled trains hasn't the rule saying no passengers must be in the leading unpowered vehicle of a fast train been dropped? If so then a DVT could carry passengers as well, again maximizing capacity. Emotional speaking, as you lot put it, I feel that giving names to multiple units is wrong because although they are basiclly fixed units occasionally part of the individual might be taken away and replaced, naming an individual locomotive or coach doesn't have this problem. Technically speaking multipule units tend to have non-standard couplings, making rescuing failed sets more problimatic. Speaking both emotionally and technically, I would probablly like the idea of a fleet of locos, passenger carring DVTs and coaches all using a standard coupling operating as semi-fixed units (like the Intercity 225) but with the standard coupling including a power bus running from the loco. With the power bus provision some coaches could then have traction motors (think the Eurostar's powered bogie in the coach nearest each power car, but not in a fixed multiple unit format), giving the advantages of distributed power too. Because these coaches are not multiple units and don't run as fixed units the number of powered coaches in each train service could be varied depending on the needs of said service.

 

Shorter distance and rual services (mostly those with 4 or less vehicles in the current train (counting locos and DVTs)) would probablly still be more suited to DMUs (Alphalines (class 158s) and class 159s please) and EMUs in most cases, even in these areas though the odd loco hauled service (like the Cardiff-Holyhead WAG train) (5 vehicles anyway) should remain to keep trainspotters interested. All DMUs/EMUs in a particular area should have a standard coupling too, to allow them to work in multiple. For example the Sprinter family (inc. 158 and 159) all have standard couplings but the class 175s can only work in multiple with other 175s. 175s also don't have a corridor connection at the ends to allow passengers to go between them when working in multiple, again part of why I chose the 158/159. Of course it would solve the rescue problem completly if the same standard coupling was used throughout the contry and matches the one on the locos and coaches (though the DMUs and EMU wouldn't have the power bus connection).

 

Has nobody seen any videos of the dual 91 Intercity 225 tests, or know where the statement that provision has been made to install ERTMS/ETCS in the Intercity 225 is?

[The Stationmaster]

When I saw an Intercity 125 (full 2+8 formation I think) at Whitland on the summer Saturday service to Pembroke Dock it did not fit in the platform and I wondered why they didn't perform the old practice of pulling in twice. Thinking about it now that would make the station stop longer, but I had another idea. The driver doesn't normally have to get out at stations and I'm sure in depots there isn't always a platform to aid the driver into the cab anyway. Therefore I suggest moving the signal at the end of the platform further out (as I see it hardly any problem at all if cab signaling is installed) so the loco can stop outside the platform, leaving the maxium length of platform for passengers.

 

 

Presumably the driver would then obtain the token for the single line by climbing down from the cab and walking back to the platform and then walking back and climbing up again?

[edin_bry2x]

even in these areas though the odd loco hauled service (like the Cardiff-Holyhead WAG train) (5 vehicles anyway) should remain to keep trainspotters interested.

 

The railway aint run to keep the trainspotters happy, this attitude spills out everywhere especially with the remaining 37's and 60's with DBS. The railway is a business full stop, there should be no sentiment involved in the front line services, we have more than enough locos preserved across the country, maybe short of a 58 or a 60.

 

that Cardiff-Holyhead loco-hauled service was only used because there were no suitable units available at the time. Isnt the service supposed to revert to units when they do become available?

 

dont get me wrong i wish i could grab a time machine and see scotrail again in the late 80s like i remember it, but thats what the modelling is for, and in model form is as close as an IC225 should or will get to HS1.

 

The benefits that the proposed SET in whatever form it is produced will provide a fantastic basis for the railways in this country to build on, having 1 interchangeable fleet of trains running most of the high speed services nationwide can only be a good thing.

[ste234]

Sorry if this may sound like a newbie-ish question, but what are these SET's? ive gathered that they are going to be a replacement unit, but are they loco driven, more so what do they look like?

Cheers,

Ste

[edin_bry2x]

Sorry if this may sound like a newbie-ish question, but what are these SET's? ive gathered that they are going to be a replacement unit, but are they loco driven, more so what do they look like?

Cheers,

Ste

 

if you Google 'Hitachi Super Expreess Train' and then go to images it brings up quite a few artists impressions of them

[The Stationmaster]

That's the way it always seems to me too.

It's not just in this country, but the world over, the loco hauled passenger train has gradually been discarded in favour of the more efficient unit train, in whatever form it takes.

 

Running costs aren't limited to fuel or electricity, but involve other items such as maintenance etc.

Locos are more expensive to run, heavier on track wear and if not top and tailed or provided with a remote driving cab at the other end of the train, more costly to operate. The loco as part of a fixed (or semi-fixed) set like the IC225 is more effective, but the MU wins out in many respects.

 

 

All that has its points but don't forget also that even with modern rolling stock the 'traction unit' - whatever it might be - still needs more maintenance and longer time in shops at some of the bigger exams than does the 'coching stock'. Thus a separate traction unit can be readily take way without tying expensive passenger stock needlessly into down time.

 

That, I'm sure, is something an experienced traction engineer like Ian Walmsley - who a wrote the piece in 'Modern Railways' - would also have in mind. Salutary too to think that Eurostar has a couple of spare power cars - both for that reason and another, invariably in even the best managed of circles end vehicles on trains tend to suffer more damage than intermediates so it is always sensible to have a spare up your sleeve unless you want to loose use of a train when only one vehicle need be taken out. In the latter context it doesn't matter if that vehicle is a loco or something else, it's just that with unit trains people tend to overlook that harsh fact of everyday railway life.

 

The other factor which has to be borne inmind is amy restriction on loading passengers to the leading vehicle of a high speed train. The risks on a line such as HS1 are minimal because we have a very effectively fenced line (I know there have been vehicular incursions but they are a rarity) with full automatic train protection.

 

IEP will not be operating in such conditions but on lines with traditional signalling - albeit with TPWS but that is only a mitigation, not something which completely rules out collisions - and also with a risk of level crossing collisons at speeds as high as 100mph. Somebody will presumably be risk assessing all that lot and in view of the attitude taken to many, often minimal, risks nowadays it will be interesting to see how that one comes out.

[Rhydgaled]

Presumably the driver would then obtain the token for the single line by climbing down from the cab and walking back to the platform and then walking back and climbing up again?

Well being a summer only service that occasion was obviouslly a while ago but if I remember rightly the train stopped at the signal box and sombody walked over before the train continued over the level crossing into the station, presumablly that was when the driver recived the token.

 

The benefits that the proposed SET in whatever form it is produced will provide a fantastic basis for the railways in this country to build on, having 1 interchangeable fleet of trains running most of the high speed services nationwide can only be a good thing.

Having the individual coaches and locos being interchangeable is usefull too, as in my above suggestion as an alternative to the IEP/SET. With the new technology that allows the proposed unit to be lighter yet safer than existing coaching stock, used on new loco-hauled trains instead, my proposal could be even better than Hiachi's proposed multiple units. Since the IC 225s will be good till 2031 they should not be replaced until then and the standard coupling on the stock I proposed should be based on the Mrk4 stock (although Mrk4s & 91s wouldn't have the power bus) so 91s could haul the new coaches (preferably the un-powered ones since powered ones wouldn't be reciving power and would just be dead weight) and the new locos could haul Mrk 4s if necessary (ideally of course this wouldn't be necessary and the locos would stick to hauling the coaches designed for use with them, but it would be usefull to have the capability just in case).

 

I said about keeping interest for trainspotters because perhaps if railways become totally boring there may be less passengers and less devoted pepole to keep the system developing. I rather feeble argument I know but there you go.

 

All that has its points but don't forget also that even with modern rolling stock the 'traction unit' - whatever it might be - still needs more maintenance and longer time in shops at some of the bigger exams than does the 'coching stock'. Thus a separate traction unit can be readily take way without tying expensive passenger stock needlessly into down time.

Then you would agree with my theroetical sugestion as an alternative replacment for the Intercity 125s? It probablly will need some work but that's hardly supprising since I'm not anywere near being much of an engineer.

The other factor which has to be borne inmind is amy restriction on loading passengers to the leading vehicle of a high speed train. The risks on a line such as HS1 are minimal because we have a very effectively fenced line (I know there have been vehicular incursions but they are a rarity) with full automatic train protection.

 

IEP will not be operating in such conditions but on lines with traditional signalling - albeit with TPWS but that is only a mitigation, not something which completely rules out collisions - and also with a risk of level crossing collisons at speeds as high as 100mph. Somebody will presumably be risk assessing all that lot and in view of the attitude taken to many, often minimal, risks nowadays it will be interesting to see how that one comes out.

Maybe the DVTs in my suggestion should not carry passengers then. Also, you said IEP will face 100mph level crossings, aren't there 125mph level crossings on the ECML to worry about too?

 

Also can sombody confirm, one way or another, if ERTMS/ETCS fitted trains can understand TVM430 (or whatever the HS1 cab signalling system is) and run on lines fitted with that system or not?

[Oakydoke]

...my proposal could be even better than Hiachi's proposed multiple units.

It looks like all the World's train manufacturers should be beating a path to your door seeking divine guidance.

 

 

I said about keeping interest for trainspotters because perhaps if railways become totally boring there may be less passengers and less devoted pepole to keep the system developing. I rather feeble argument I know but there you go.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I rather think the railways would get along fine without a bunch of train spotters hanging around. In terms of passenger numbers, you are of no consequence - whatsoever!

If you're bored with the railway scene, maybe you could take up another interest (like playing with spellchecker).

 

 

 

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth....

[Glorious NSE]

That's the way it always seems to me too.

It's not just in this country, but the world over, the loco hauled passenger train has gradually been discarded in favour of the more efficient unit train, in whatever form it takes.

 

But running with unit train efficiency does not mean you can't have a loco and coaches! The HST is a pair of loco's and some coaches, the 225s are a loco and coaches...

 

In terms of the rest of the world, with the exception of Japan they appear to use loco's as an option far more than we do over here - for example check out the Austrian's new intercity train "Railjet" - which is a loco and push pull coaches set. Obviously it must work for them?

 

I'm not a "loco hauled fanatic", I can't understand why we don't currently have a build of new DMUs underway to replace pacers and give the capacity needed on many places on the network whilst we run rather silly T&T loco formations about the place for example, but I can see that there could be advantages to this not being set up as a fixed formation integrated trainset, especially as we're signing up to these being used everywhere in the UK for a considerable period of time and over what is undoubtedly a considerable period of change on the railways.

 

The flexibility we've seen in setup over the years in the HST and Mk3 LHCS sets for example would be hard to acheive with a Pendolino.

[Edwin_m]

To be fair Iam Walmsley did say that EMUs would be the way to go for our future intercity trainsets, were it not for the need on many routes to run through onto lines that were unlikely to be electrified.

[pete_mcfarlane]

But running with unit train efficiency does not mean you can't have a loco and coaches! The HST is a pair of loco's and some coaches, the 225s are a loco and coaches...

That will just save you from having to run the loco round at each terminal. Locomotive hauled trains burn more fuel/electricity when accelerating than multiple units with power bogies distributed throughout the train.

 

Burning less electricity appears to one of the factors behind choosing a multiple unit for the IEP. The only time proponents of the loco hauled option seem to be interested in energy consumption is when they can use it to slag off the bi-mode SET for carting around a diesel engine under the wires.