New DMUs (Civity) - climate change

[edwin_m]

Well 25kV lines are still detachable in the case of TGV power cars.

They'll all be detachable in depot for maintenance purposes, but not when units are coupled and uncoupled in service.

 

[gazthomas]

what context are you referring to 2-car EMUs (like 456s and 466s) in...?

Post #21

 

[anamyd]

Post #21

ah yes, thanks!

 

[option]

A new design for an EMU family could easily make provision for alternative power sources to feed the DC bus, diesel genset or batteries, (or even both) just need to be connected onto that bus. The traction control and motor drives are then operating in the same way except that under regeneration conditions where kinetic energy in the moving train is converted back to electrical energy, it is then:

1) fed back through the transformer to the OLE
2) fed through tbe collector shoes directly to the 3rd rail
3) used to charge the batteries
4) or wasted as heat in resistor banks on a pure DEMU train.​

A well designed DEMU, whilst wasting energy and probably carrying slightly more weight than a diesel mechanical MU, should make better use of the diesel engine's power curve to give better fuel economy, and have lower maintenance costs.

seems like a good place for re-gen braking into batteries

 

[Rhydgaled]

Yes that's a possibility - the separation would be as good as a pair of standard 4-car EMUs in the worst case orientiation, which as far as I know are unrestricted up to at least 100mph. I guess the problem would be finding the space for all the cab equipment if that part has a flat roof.

Come to think of it, Electrostars have driving vehicles barely over 20m long and the class 195 driving vehicles are (I think) 24m long so even if the pantograph was at the inner-end of the driving vehicle the seperation wouldn't be that much less (or maybe even the same) than a worst-case pair of Electrostars.

And then I came across this in the class 91s to Europhenix topic:

At lower freight speeds 2 pantographs close together won't be an issue see the 86 pairs every day!

which makes me wonder whether there are any restrictions on pantograph spacing for operation at 100mph or less. Above 100mph there are probably issues, but are there any rules regarding multiple pantographs at lower speeds?

 

[edwin_m]

And then I came across this in the class 91s to Europhenix topic:which makes me wonder whether there are any restrictions on pantograph spacing for operation at 100mph or less. Above 100mph there are probably issues, but are there any rules regarding multiple pantographs at lower speeds?

Although the 86s are or were 100mph locomotives, the trains they haul are 75mph maximum and the locos may even have been downgraded to that speed. So if there was a restriction of two pantographs to 75mph it wouldn't affect them significantly.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Although the 86s are or were 100mph locomotives, the trains they haul are 75mph maximum and the locos may even have been downgraded to that speed. So if there was a restriction of two pantographs to 75mph it wouldn't affect them significantly.

Ah, so they don't go above 75mph when running in pairs.

I've just openned up AutoCAD and tried putting a pantograph well at the inner end of the driving vehicles of a unit similar to the 195s in a similar position relative to the vehicle end as the class 331 pantograph well. I have found that the shortest distance between the nearest points of the pantograph wells would be a bit over 39 metres. I also managed to find Railway Group Standard GMRT2111 from which it appears that such a configuration would be limited to 120kmph (roughly 74.6mph). However if both driving vehicles were to have a pantograph well then the pantograph spacing would exceed the 45 metres necessary to allow the speed to increase to 180kmph which (at over 111mph) is more than enough given the likely 100mph spec of the TfW units.

The real boon is that DEMUs can have a life beyond the electrification of their lines whereas DMUs are a technology cul-de-sac. It's a ashame that the climate change debate took hold after the 195s were ordered, because there must be regrets that pure diesels were bought.

If you think 195s are bad, Transport for Wales have slightly more vehicles on-order from CAF than Northern ordered and they have also gone for DMU not DEMU as far as I'm aware.

The 195s are DMUs pure and simple, -they have diesel engines, mechanical or hydraulic transmission and mechanical drives to the axles. To convert them to bi-mode or even plain EMU would require a complete rebuild so probably not worth the effort. If they were built as DEMUs with passive provision to convert to a full bi-mode EDMU*, (or even a normal EMU), conversion would enable the bogies, and much of the electric infrastructure to be utilised. Indeed if a new design MU was to be created that had provision for all viable roles, the removal of diesel-powered units from UK railways could be managed a lot smoother and probably with lower total costs.

This makes so much sense, it's such a shame that we must 'never assume that railways are rational organisations' and have ended up with the diesel-future class 195/196 and likely TfW's units too unless somebody gets the message and acts quickly to bang in a variation order. Now, who would have the authority to do that...

 

[Bletchleyite]

This makes so much sense, it's such a shame that we must 'never assume that railways are rational organisations' and have ended up with the diesel-future class 195/196 and likely TfW's units too unless somebody gets the message and acts quickly to bang in a variation order. Now, who would have the authority to do that...

They're probably less of an issue for Wales, as Wales isn't going to get the wires any time soon and other power methods are nowhere near ready. It's the Northern order that was an error to the point of gross negligence - Northern ordered them knowing they would be spewing fumes under the wires.

 

[Rhydgaled]

They're probably less of an issue for Wales, as Wales isn't going to get the wires any time soon and other power methods are nowhere near ready. It's the Northern order that was an error to the point of gross negligence - Northern ordered them knowing they would be spewing fumes under the wires.

Wales is getting a short stretch of wires (Cardiff - Severn tunnel) soon, but other than that you are correct to say that Wales isn't getting wires soon. However, there is talk of extending electrification from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury, which is a route covered by Wales & Borders services and services to Liverpool and Manchester also run under the wires. The Welsh Government has also attempted to get electrification of the north Wales coast line - DEMUs with passive provision for convertion to bi-mode (if such a thing is possible) would help make the case for that. If they are serious about getting the north Wales coast wired, buying new DMUs is shooting themselves in the foot.

There's also 'soon' and there's 'soon'. North Wales wires and the like aren't going to happen in this franchise period (even though it is a fairly long one at 15 years). However, they might happen fairly soon after that, long before the new DMUs would be life expired.

Also, Northern have a vast number of other DMUs. They can't all be running under the wires. They could replace the 195s with bi-modes or EMUs at a later date and cascade the 195s to replace 150/1s. TfW won't have that option, the number of older DMUs retained after 2023 (intended to be just the 170s at present I believe) will be far less than the number of new DMUs on-order.

 

[AM9]

They're probably less of an issue for Wales, as Wales isn't going to get the wires any time soon and other power methods are nowhere near ready. It's the Northern order that was an error to the point of gross negligence - Northern ordered them knowing they would be spewing fumes under the wires.

Therein lies the problem! Just because an ideological obsession with privatisation, competition and 'choice?' has fragmented the railway into little profit fiefdoms where decisions are made purely on a short-term profit culture, doesn't mean that all of those operations should operate in their own vacuums. Rolling stock procurement is presided over by the DfT, - either directly in terms of authorising and funding through subsidies, or indirectly by awarding franchises/management contracts on the basis of bids that include specific rolling stock acquisitions. In terms of subsidies, we are here talking about franchises that are among the most heavily subsidised so their control is absolute if they chose to exercise it.
In BR days, - sure everything was not perfect, and plenty of the stock provision was on the basis of closely matching the requirement, but after the diesel debacle in the modernisation plan, new stock was becoming much more redeployable, e.g. from the class 310/312 designs, they found work on the WCML, the GEML and the L,T & S. The 'PEP' derivatives were deployed on Southern, GEML & NLL (admittedly in privatisation days but had MKI stock been condemned earlier, they would have gone there earlier. Then the MKIII EMUs were generally interchangeable (except 319s) and really only differed functionally by the number of cars per unit and seating classes.
The Thumpers were an outstanding success, - they eventually went almost everywhere on the SR metals, - even running occasionally out of London Bridge to rural railheads, and as i said upthread, they were only replaced because of their H&S issues wioth slam-doors and compartments. Had the desigbn been extended, (beyond the class 210) into these times whem concerns were rising about CO2 creation, I'm sure that we would be much further into provisioning DEMUs that had a viable provision for conversion into Bi-Modes, BEMUs and even EMUs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One thing that's quite interesting is that the Class 80x is very similar to an old style BR standardisation - it has basically, with only the odd exception, become the new standard IC train. Yet there hasn't been a regional equivalent. Why, I wonder?

 

[HSTEd]

One thing that's quite interesting is that the Class 80x is very similar to an old style BR standardisation - it has basically, with only the odd exception, become the new standard IC train. Yet there hasn't been a regional equivalent. Why, I wonder?

Because such things are communist.

The Government and wider industry has bought the manufacturers lies about "software can't be made compatible" and allow them to insist on the use of lock-in prone proprietary solutions for everything.
So we end up with a zoo of train types rather than Networker/Sprinter - where trains are compatible even if they are from different builders.

And even the Networkers were wiring compatible with most Mark 3 EMUs, or very nearly so.

 

[AM9]

Because such things are communist.

The Government and wider industry has bought the manufacturers lies about "software can't be made compatible" and allow them to insist on the use of lock-in prone proprietary solutions for everything.
So we end up with a zoo of train types rather than Networker/Sprinter - where trains are compatible even if they are from different builders.

And even the Networkers were wiring compatible with most Mark 3 EMUs, or very nearly so.

One of the reasons that we have this situation is that even where a single procuring authority is involved, each purchase is judged on its compliance to an inadequate spec., and all that's left is to then declare the lowest price offer as the winner. A clear case of not knowing how to procure in a competitive environment.
The aviation industry copes OK in every country (when governments don't let political ambitions interfere). Elecronics on aircraft is highly structured, essentially to comply with a lot of regulatory requirements.This has grown as system design around internationally specified interfaces have spread into nearly all safety and flight critical areas. It allows a major airline to specify a build of aircraft with specific engines, particular comms, in-flight entertainment systems, navigation avionics, power systems etc., such that maintenance can be handled iin the most time and cost efficient way. These interfaces are way more complex than even the latest train counterparts, and the 'reboot' fix just isn't an option for most situations once the wheels are up.
I f trains had an industry agreed discrete and bus setr of interconnects, with a common subset of operational functions over which any combination would be certified to work, this problem wouldn't arise. It might have a slightly higher development cost, but that would easily be recouped over the very long that train types are in use. Maybe sombody here could explain whether the interfaces of ETCS have been standardised or whether the chance to get genuine interchangeability has once again been missed.

 

[edwin_m]

Therein lies the problem! Just because an ideological obsession with privatisation, competition and 'choice?' has fragmented the railway into little profit fiefdoms where decisions are made purely on a short-term profit culture, doesn't mean that all of those operations should operate in their own vacuums. Rolling stock procurement is presided over by the DfT, - either directly in terms of authorising and funding through subsidies, or indirectly by awarding franchises/management contracts on the basis of bids that include specific rolling stock acquisitions. In terms of subsidies, we are here talking about franchises that are among the most heavily subsidised so their control is absolute if they chose to exercise it.

However another part of privatization was to make trains leased rather than owned by a franchise, so they are able to move elsewhere at the end of the franchise term. Partly as a consequence, manufacturers and leasing companies have developed go-anywhere designs for regional units, which are able to be leased to different operators without major modifications. This is unlike the latter days of BR, when Network SouthEast ordered the 165/166 fleet whose dimensions limited it to a small part of the network and whose couplers were (apparently) deliberately modified to be incompatible with the technically similar units in the Regional fleet.

It's unlikely the 15x fleet will last more than another decade and the DMUs built in the early privatization years are only 10 years or so younger. The Civity fleets currently being introduced could fill all these roles, possibly with some interior refits. So the question is more about the tradeoff between passenger growth, electrification and development of other self-powered technologies which determines how many Civity units will have a long-term role replacing other diesels.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's unlikely the 15x fleet will last more than another decade and the DMUs built in the early privatization years are only 10 years or so younger. The Civity fleets currently being introduced could fill all these roles, possibly with some interior refits. So the question is more about the tradeoff between passenger growth, electrification and development of other self-powered technologies which determines how many Civity units will have a long-term role replacing other diesels.

And I believe that is the reason why 2-car units were ordered - with the best will in the world, Ormskirk-Preston or Kirkby-Wigan (say) is unlikely to justify a 3-car set any time soon.

It's just Northern's incompetence that has led to these running alone on the mainline.

 

[AM9]

But the problem is there are

And I believe that is the reason why 2-car units were ordered - with the best will in the world, Ormskirk-Preston or Kirkby-Wigan (say) is unlikely to justify a 3-car set any time soon.

It's just Northern's incompetence that has led to these running alone on the mainline.

Not just incompetence, having 2-car units might match the requirement that they are intended for, but when other lines have a shortfall, the temptation to undersupply them with shorter trains is all too much. If a uniform 3-car fleet was used, it would be easier to manage demand in times of disruption.

 

[HSTEd]

The obvious solution is to have a completely uniform 3-car fleet and then just cut fares on Ormsirk-Preston and Kirkby-Wigan to improve patronage.

 

[randyrippley]

There are standard plugs and sockets for feeding auxiliary supplies through a train. 25kV or 750V traction supplies can be fed through a bus wire within a unit not to or from other units coupled to it.

The only example I can think of where traction power is transferred via a plug and socket is the "slug" units in the US, which are (or were) "locomotives" with traction motors but no engine, plugged in to an actual locomotive and taking power from it to increase tractive effort at low speeds. I don't know the voltage used but it would be in the hundreds of volts as supplied to the motors, certainly not 25kV. In principle something like that might be possible with the "DC Link" in a modern traction package, but highly likely to be a manual plug and socket not through an autocoupler.

How was the power transferred to the driving trailers in the Blue Pullmans?

 

[sprinterguy]

How was the power transferred to the driving trailers in the Blue Pullmans?

Driving trailers? All of the Blue Pullman driving vehicles were power cars, similar to HST operation, fitted with 1000hp MAN engines.

 

[randyrippley]

Driving trailers? All of the Blue Pullman driving vehicles were power cars, similar to HST operation, fitted with 1000hp MAN engines.

I should have said non-driving motor
the "trailer" next to the power car had a motor bogie

 

[sprinterguy]

I should have said non-driving motor
the "trailer" next to the power car had a motor bogie

Ah right, I wondered if I'd missed some nuance there, my apologies. The only source I have to hand only states that power for the motor bogie was transferred "through cables", which is less than enlightening!

 

[edwin_m]

How was the power transferred to the driving trailers in the Blue Pullmans?

There would have been some sort of plug and socket similar to the "slugs" I mentioned, at traction motor voltage. Certainly not an autocoupler.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The obvious solution is to have a completely uniform 3-car fleet and then just cut fares on Ormsirk-Preston and Kirkby-Wigan to improve patronage.

You assume that just cutting fares will achieve that - on quiet branch lines you often wouldn't get a significant patronage increase even if it was free[1]. Though there is still an argument for standardising on 3 x 23/24m (and double sets) because of the simplicity.

[1] OK, if it was free you might get some transfer from passholders on the bus - it worked for the Conwy Valley. But you won't create demand for travel on a line where the demand for travel just isn't huge.

 

[Rhydgaled]

This is still a difficult issue; there are some obvious ways the fuel consumption of a DMU could potentially be reduced (battery-hybrid like the proposed TfW class 230s and/or bi-mode like a Greater Anglia FLIRT or GWR/LNER class 800), but who can weigh up the whole life environmental cost (including non-CO2 emmisions) of the various options, given factors such as:

• relative fuel consumption of new trains to existing trains
• energy use in the construction of new trains
• energy use in the construction of batteries
• fuel consumption increase due to weight of batteries/pantographs etc.

 

[Dr Day]

I'm guessing the reasons for Keolis-Amey's decision are more political and financial than technical or environmental. I expect WG/TfW simply wanted 'new trains' and gave extra franchise points for 'new' and 'built in Wales' rather than 'ex-English TOC cast-offs' or 'no change from today', with bidders having to pick an overall fleet that optimised their score against leasing/maintenance/operating costs (with synergies for a larger common fleet) and met capacity requirements.

There may have been some points for running electric/bi-mode traction, however electrification on the Cardiff Valleys and the rolling stock for that (ie putting up wires in Wales) may have been more of a concern than running diesel under English wires.

 

[squizzler]

Could the later builds of 19x (really meaning the Welsh 197s) have their orders modified to 'hybrid ready' power packs like these ones for the new cars ordered by Iarnród Éireann to lengthen their trains?

Iarnród Éireann orders Stage V MTU PowerPacks

IRELAND: Rolls-Royce has been awarded a contract to supply 41 ‘hybrid-ready’ MTU PowerPacks for the additional Class 22000 inter-city diesel multiple-unit cars which Iarnród Éireann ordered from Mitsui & Co last year.

These PowerPacks will be fitted with MTU 6H 1800 R86 diesel engines complying with EU Stage V emissions regulations.

Delivery is to commence in 2021, with the PowerPacks to be in service from late 2022. They will have provision for the future installation of batteries, subject to the outcome of testing which is scheduled to begin in 2021.

 

[Jozhua]

I don't think that the diesel burn of the railways is a major concern in regards to climate change. Currently most trips are made by car, which typically use more fuel per mile and are only slightly more efficient fully loaded than even the dirtiest old HSTs running at 125mph...

If budgets are to be as limited as they are, effort is probably best focused on expanding services with the cleanest diesel technology available VS electrification or worse, some crazy hydrogen/battery scheme.

Obviously I think less emissions is a positive selling point for electrification, but due to the very nature of rail, it tends to have less impact anyway.

The fuel burn of the railway is rather small compared to other sectors of the economy.
IIRC the railway uses about 530kT of fuel oil per annum, the airline industry uses something like 15,000kT.

Exactly.

I believe the Rail Industry Decarbonisation Task Force has recomended a net zero by 2050 target for the rail industry, and have also supported the withdrawal of all diesel-only trains by 2040.

However, construction of new trains involves a not insignificant amount of carbon emmisions (eg. in the smelting of aluminium) so it is prudent to maximise the viable working life of trains so that they are not replaced too often. Give Northern's class 195s a 30 year life and they'd be withdrawn in... 2049-2050. Would building a new fleet to replace them in 2040 cause more emmisions than allowing the 195s to run until 2050? The class 196 and Wales & Borders fleets, given that they are not yet even under construction as far as I know, could still be with us in the 2050s.

Hahahahahahahahahah 2050. Fat chance.

If they actually cared about it, they would set a target to say cut emissions by 10% in the next five years and 50% in the next ten.

Setting far off goals for 2050 is useful to no-one. Most people on the committee will likely be retired or dead by then.

I commit to cutting my environmental impact to zero by 2100.

You can have all the stats you like but the ordinary bod on the street is going to hear “green trains” but be thinking “that noisy, rattly, thing belching out fumes in my local station?”

I doubt most passengers even notice.

There's probably "new train" or "old train" and that's about it.

Most probably wouldn't bat an eye if a steam engine came to take them out of London Euston in replacement of a Pendolino.

One thing that's quite interesting is that the Class 80x is very similar to an old style BR standardisation - it has basically, with only the odd exception, become the new standard IC train. Yet there hasn't been a regional equivalent. Why, I wonder?

Yeah, that is strange. Better to have a ton of disjointed incompatible fleets I guess...

Because such things are communist.

The Government and wider industry has bought the manufacturers lies about "software can't be made compatible" and allow them to insist on the use of lock-in prone proprietary solutions for everything.
So we end up with a zoo of train types rather than Networker/Sprinter - where trains are compatible even if they are from different builders.

And even the Networkers were wiring compatible with most Mark 3 EMUs, or very nearly so.

Yeah lol, that sounds about right.

The government properly should put more effort on intercompatibility, but considering the level of incomptence and apathy everything else is done with, who knows.

 

[Energy]

Could the later builds of 19x (really meaning the Welsh 197s) have their orders modified to 'hybrid ready' power packs like these ones for the new cars ordered by Iarnród Éireann to lengthen their trains?

Yes. The MTU PowerPacks used by the Civitys have this available, it shouldn't be hard to fit.