769s/799s (or later bi/tri modes) and 802s. The more provision for electrification there is, the better.
I suggested the use of 769's and it was rejected!
On what grounds?
Uhhhh good luck with that.
I think it was because of them running entirely on diesel unless of course there is partial electrification.
What? The TfW Class 769s will be almost exclusively diesel.
Surely building in scope for future developments is no bad thing?!
That's exactly what I said!
There are many issues with Class 769s, but they were very much intended to be equivalent to a Class 150.That's exactly what I said!
What about a tri-mode 195? By tri, I mean Overhead, third rail and hydrogen. Perhaps batteries could also be there, making them quad-modes. Who knows...
Just build something brand new at that point...
They can be used on Weymouth trains as well
Better asking Stadler, they already make hydrogen Flirts
Good point, for some reason I thought the Flirt Akku was hydrogen.
Adding hydrogen to a FLIRT power pod should be straightforward and low risk. It is not rocket science. A fuel cell train is basically a battery-electric train with the fuel cell adding 'range extender' functionality as an alternative to a diesel generator module to keep the batteries topped up, without necessarily having to meet the full instantaneous peak power demand alone. A hydro-FLIRT could also have pantographs for traction on wired sections while also keeping its batteries charged up. I expect all manufacturers will soon offer the alternative for certain niche applications where traffic density is too low to justify discontinuous electrification, and batteries for the out and back distance would be too big and heavy. Faster charging of better and lighter battery tech however may compete heavily with hydrogen in his niche. Successful, nimble train suppliers will build 'platforms' that can readily adapt to any of these modern energy sources and storage mediums, partnering with specialists for the particular technologies.
As an engineer, I wince a little every time someone says ”should be” or ”not rocket science”. It’s never that easy!
The rocket science quip was a bit flippant and a nod to the fact fuel cells have been used in space with rockets! I agree with your sentiments as an engineer myself, which is why I'm heartened by the fact they're not rushing into any large scale commitments and are planning prototype trials on a reasonable timescale. I recently discovered that a small fleet of locally built diesel Flirts in the USA is due to be converted in 2024. The point I'm really trying to make is the architecture of the FLIRT design should make the modification easier with the new equipment and fuel store being confined to the separate pod unit with minimal changes to the rest of the train. The Alstom train being produced already for Germany is an adaptation of a pre-existing design, but clearly they've had a bigger task incorporating the equipment into/onto/under the passenger car bodies. I have my reservations about certain risks, particularly fuel discharges. I understand in open air that with tanks on the roof extremely light hydrogen will rise rapidly away from the vehicle and dissipate to safe concentration. In a confined area like a long tunnel that may not happen so easily so I'll be interested in how this is mitigated. Perhaps there will be limits on where the technology can be used.
The difference is that Stadler already have a hydrogen pod (centre small car thing) for a FLIRT in the states. It can do 79mph which is fine for this.
I think the 79mph is due to other local rules and regulations, nothing to do with the power technology. That speed is the longstanding FRA limit for passenger trains and routes not equipped with cab signalling/train protection systems. Much of Amtrack runs at this speed. The FLIRT regional product line is referred to generally as the FLIRT 160 which is kmh for approx. 100mph.
Apollo 13 being a good example
How do you propose that is paid for? Is the reliability that bad?
No. it will probably be the same so the new trains won't be loud as the old trains
Please, no more pure diesels, we have too many as it is!
But then a short term solution (15 years) may be exactly what is needed to tie things over until a longer term solution (which may involve more electrification) can be implemented
