Shared train types?

[Greetlander]

I'm British but I live in Australia. I've always been fascinated by our XPTs over here, heavily reengineered for the climate and track standards, but still recognisably a HST.

I was at the station the other day when one of our Endeavour DMU sets came past - great trains and have served NSW well, but I got to thinking that it was a relatively small fleet of single deck DMUs, top speed around 90mph. We also have Hunter Railcars, two-car DMUs and seven sets built in total.

Is there anything to stop one national rail operator from borrowing a design from another country? Would it not have been sensible for NSW to have bought into the class 158 for example? Wouldn't it be cheaper and more convenient to re-engineer an existing tried and tested design or even collaborate in the early stages?

I know nothing about engineering. Fire away.

 

[LiftFan]

I suppose one of the more well known examples can be found in Thailand, using the 158 base. Stadler also use their FLIRTs in many countries, across continents now. Would you also count the Mk2s sent to New Zealand which were heavily modified and the Vivarail pop-up metro?

 

[edwin_m]

Standard designs are used widely across Europe, for example electric locomotives such as Vectron and Traxx. They can be fitted with different combinations of electrification voltage and signalling systems to operate in various contries.

 

[12LDA28C]

I'm British but I live in Australia. I've always been fascinated by our XPTs over here, heavily reengineered for the climate and track standards, but still recognisably a HST.

I was at the station the other day when one of our Endeavour DMU sets came past - great trains and have served NSW well, but I got to thinking that it was a relatively small fleet of single deck DMUs, top speed around 90mph. We also have Hunter Railcars, two-car DMUs and seven sets built in total.

Is there anything to stop one national rail operator from borrowing a design from another country? Would it not have been sensible for NSW to have bought into the class 158 for example? Wouldn't it be cheaper and more convenient to re-engineer an existing tried and tested design or even collaborate in the early stages?

I know nothing about engineering. Fire away.

I visited New Zealand in 2010 and was interested to see a load of ex-BR Mark 2D/E/F coaches in use over there as part of loco-hauled formations.

 

[Pdf]

Probably happens more often now that rolling stock development is fully privatised. Companies will build a platform and then customise it for a particular order.

Some examples:

Electrostars are used in South Africa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautrain
Siemens Desiros are used all over Europe and there are some class 360 derived trains in use in Thailand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Desiro
CAF Civity can also be found around Europe as well as soon in Australia to replace the XPT (though these aren't directly derived from designs used in the UK):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAF_Civity

FLIRTS are also found all around Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_FLIRT
Hitachi A-Trains (class 80x as well as 385 and 395) are used in many configurations, especially in Japan. Though nothing that's recognisably similar to an 80x. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi_A-train
Lastly the CAF CxK used in NI and ROI are also used in New Zealand as the AM class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CxK

 

[zwk500]

Is there anything to stop one national rail operator from borrowing a design from another country?

To copy a design outright would require all the engineering standards to be compatible (not necessarily identical). If you're adapting a base design for another application then economics are a bigger factor than the technical stuff. Over time, changes in manufacturing processes and globalisation of corporations have swung the balance from' build your own' towards adapting an existing design.

As others have mentioned, most major manufacturers now have 'families' of trains that share many common design features, such as the Siemens Velaro High-Speed trains of the Hitachi A-Train family that goes all the way from commuter to HSR, so it's very feasible.

 

[MarkyT]

To copy a design outright would require all the engineering standards to be compatible (not necessarily identical). If you're adapting a base design for another application then economics are a bigger factor than the technical stuff. Over time, changes in manufacturing processes and globalisation of corporations have swung the balance from' build your own' towards adapting an existing design.

As others have mentioned, most major manufacturers now have 'families' of trains that share many common design features, such as the Siemens Velaro High-Speed trains of the Hitachi A-Train family that goes all the way from commuter to HSR, so it's very feasible.

UK models invariably need a different bodyshell to match our small loading gauge and platform standards, even if most of the technical kit on board might be the same as the trains on which they are based as supplied to the European mainland. Stadler also make variants of the FLIRT for example with wider than typical European bodies for networks that can accept them such as the standard gauge railways of Scandinavia and the broad gauge of the former Soviet Union and Finland. The comparatively small but growing number of Stadler trains built in the USA are also supersized accordingly to match their larger clearances. The Hitachi A-train series is interesting as they are based on narrow gauge trains from Japan, whose bodyshell cross-sectional dimensions are fairly similar to UK standard gauge dimensions, including the provision for a high platform slightly inset from the widest point of the vehicle. This possibly made the adaptation of bodyshell designs to UK dimensions easier for the class 385, 395 and 8xx series.

 

[zwk500]

UK models invariably need a different bodyshell to match our small loading gauge and platform standards, even if most of the technical kit on board might be the same as the trains on which they are based as supplied to the European mainland. Stadler also make variants of the FLIRT for example with wider than typical European bodies for networks that can accept them such as the standard gauge railways of Scandinavia and the broad gauge of the former Soviet Union and Finland. The comparatively small but growing number of Stadler trains built in the USA are also supersized accordingly to match their larger clearances. The Hitachi A-train series is interesting as they are based on narrow gauge trains from Japan, whose bodyshell cross-sectional dimensions are fairly similar to UK standard gauge dimensions, including the provision for a high platform slightly inset from the widest point of the vehicle. This possibly made the adaptation of bodyshell designs to UK dimensions easier for the class 385, 395 and 8xx series.

Redesigning a bodyshell is only part of the process though. If you can reuse bogie and suspension designs and traction packages that saves a hell of a lot of the design work. Also certification regimes have become stricter and stricter but also more standardised. If you can keep some elements of the design standardised like traction, bogies and suspension then each different bodyshell will require only require inspection for the differences, rather than starting from scratch each time.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Australia was obsessed with "offsets" in their post-war overseas procurements, to ensure the maximum work for local factories.
It might be rather different now in a globalised world, but I think local assembly is still the favoured route.

Of course the UK has its own style of "offsets", often persuing different standards for no better reason than to put a union jack on it (3-pin plugs for a start, or nuclear reactors).
The export potential of such designs was close to nil (XPT and Gautrain being exceptions).
Common EU standards reduced the position somewhat over the years, but you can feel it returning in a post-Brexit world with everything labelled "Great British...".

I've had one ride in an NSW Endeavour set (Sydney-Canberra), and I thought at the time it felt like a class 158 adaptation.
But reversible and comfortable seating, and hot food available en route, was better than any 158 I've been on.
You don't see a lineside field full of kangaroos in the UK, either...

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'm British but I live in Australia. I've always been fascinated by our XPTs over here, heavily reengineered for the climate and track standards, but still recognisably a HST.

I was at the station the other day when one of our Endeavour DMU sets came past - great trains and have served NSW well, but I got to thinking that it was a relatively small fleet of single deck DMUs, top speed around 90mph. We also have Hunter Railcars, two-car DMUs and seven sets built in total.

You like the Endeavours do you? I think they’re comfortable yet rather bland inside. I passed a triple set leaving Central this morning, a pair in Cityrail colours and one in NSW Trainlink. I don’t like the Hunters very much.

I visited New Zealand in 2010 and was interested to see a load of ex-BR Mark 2D/E/F coaches in use over there as part of loco-hauled formations.

Yes, I was on a Mark 2 set out of Wellington last Friday. The refurbished ones with new seats and plugs are very pleasant, and much nicer than the small handful of original seat ones lacking pull down tables and charging points. They feel decades more modern than any Mark 2s ever have done in England. The doors are now automated but funnily enough look identical to the slam ones they had originally.

Lastly the CAF CxK used in NI and ROI are also used in New Zealand as the AM class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CxK

These I also went on last Wednesday in Auckland, not a big fan as they have a very Metro train style interior. I prefer the Metlink rivals out on the Wellington suburban network. You can even hang bikes on the front

I've had one ride in an NSW Endeavour set (Sydney-Canberra), and I thought at the time it felt like a class 158 adaptation.
But reversible and comfortable seating, and hot food available en route, was better than any 158 I've been on.
You don't see a lineside field full of kangaroos in the UK, either...

Would have been an XPlorer on Sydney Canberra. Identical externally but with a far more comfortable interior suitable for much longer journeys, and a cafebar. The seating is very thick and well padded. Just a shame it takes you to such a miserable excuse for a capital city. It’s no secret I dislike Canberra.


This is an Endeavour set’s interior. As you can see, a lot more spartan that the interior of their long distance counterparts the XPlorer.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Is there anything to stop one national rail operator from borrowing a design from another country? Would it not have been sensible for NSW to have bought into the class 158 for example? Wouldn't it be cheaper and more convenient to re-engineer an existing tried and tested design or even collaborate in the early stages?

I know nothing about engineering. Fire away.

As mentioned by @LNW-GW Joint Australia has many trains which are locally built versions of foreign designs especially diesel locomotives, many of which are virtual clones of various EMD designs. In these cases the engines, generators and traction motors are pure EMD and the body designs are often almost identical to their US counterparts.

Over time the various Australian manufacturers have obviously developed plenty of expertise in design as well as construction but the cost of developing modern traction components means these items are normally foreign designs. So V/Line's Dandenong built VLocity DMUs are powered by the Cummins QSK19 engine as used in many contemporary British DMUs.

 

[D365]

Would you also count the Mk2s sent to New Zealand which were heavily modified and the Vivarail pop-up metro?

Exported, I would say.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Northern Ireland Railways "Castle Class" were essentially diesel electric versions of BRs class 150s. (Give or take 6 inches or so in track gauge)

 

[D365]

Northern Ireland Railways "Castle Class" were essentially diesel electric versions of BRs class 150s.

Would that not make them closer to a Class 210?

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

Class 59s are a repackaged version of a standard American design.

The class 66 used the same bodyshell to make a European version of another American product, with some also making Egypt.

IIRC there are versions of the class 67 in Israel and Sri Lanka

 

[Greetlander]

You like the Endeavours do you? I think they’re comfortable yet rather bland inside. I passed a triple set leaving Central this morning, a pair in Cityrail colours and one in NSW Trainlink. I don’t like the Hunters very much.


Yes, I was on a Mark 2 set out of Wellington last Friday. The refurbished ones with new seats and plugs are very pleasant, and much nicer than the small handful of original seat ones lacking pull down tables and charging points. They feel decades more modern than any Mark 2s ever have done in England. The doors are now automated but funnily enough look identical to the slam ones they had originally.


These I also went on last Wednesday in Auckland, not a big fan as they have a very Metro train style interior. I prefer the Metlink rivals out on the Wellington suburban network. You can even hang bikes on the front


Would have been an XPlorer on Sydney Canberra. Identical externally but with a far more comfortable interior suitable for much longer journeys, and a cafebar. The seating is very thick and well padded. Just a shame it takes you to such a miserable excuse for a capital city. It’s no secret I dislike Canberra.

View attachment 133413
This is an Endeavour set’s interior. As you can see, a lot more spartan that the interior of their long distance counterparts the XPlorer.

I’m not passionate about the endeavour but it does the job, the xplorer version is much better and in fact I enjoy them more than the XPT. I wouldn’t want to long distance on a Hunter but it’s a good unit for what and where it is used. My heart belongs to the V set - so I’m on countdown to disappointment.

Canberra is great - I really think it’s horribly underrated as a destination.

Thanks everyone for the responses - the issues with sharing designs are now a lot clearer.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I’m not passionate about the endeavour but it does the job, the xplorer version is much better and in fact I enjoy them more than the XPT. I wouldn’t want to long distance on a Hunter but it’s a good unit for what and where it is used. My heart belongs to the V set - so I’m on countdown to disappointment.

Canberra is great - I really think it’s horribly underrated as a destination.

Thanks everyone for the responses - the issues with sharing designs are now a lot clearer.

Yes, I like the V Sets and I’m considering taking a diversion to fit one into my journey home from Westfield Bondi. Deliberately took an OSCAR in as they’re far nicer than Tangaras.

Relevant to both the V Sets and the title of the thread - the diesel units operated in Adelaide look to me a little like a squashed V Set at the front and back ends, but a 313 at the sides!

 

[Fleetmaster]

The more you have to change, the less savings (design and testing) there are from adaption compared to a ground up design.

Changing basic dimensions affects stress/load calculations. Changing electrical/electronic components affects interference/compatibility assumptions. Even where you buy a seemingly innocuous standard part like a bearing can have huge implications, if you are in a different region for the purposes of standards.

A UK train would also have quite literally thousands of small cheap components rated only for our relatively normal climate, whose performance would not be guaranteed under extreme heat or highly dusty conditions.

All these changes require the same level of assurance or testing as if you had designed the vehicle from scratch.

At a certain point, certainly if you intend to build a fleet, it really does pay to design it yourself, or more likely, have a global engineering firm familiar with your needs to design it for you. That way they can take advantage of solutions already found elsewhere.

Some of the most expensive and indeed deadly engineering mistakes of modern times have come from engineers making assumptions about design changes to already proven products, typically because they are seeking shortcuts due to cost pressures from above. The air crashes involving "extended" versions of airliners being one obvious example.

The worst case scenario for trains of course is their expected performance in a crash. Once you find out you made a mistake in your engineering assumptions, it's already too late. Modeling doesn't help if the model is one where you input the assumptions (again to save time or money), rather than a ground up this is what it is how does it behave type model.

 

[Greetlander]

Yes, I like the V Sets and I’m considering taking a diversion to fit one into my journey home from Westfield Bondi. Deliberately took an OSCAR in as they’re far nicer than Tangaras.

Relevant to both the V Sets and the title of the thread - the diesel units operated in Adelaide look to me a little like a squashed V Set at the front and back ends, but a 313 at the sides!

With the Tangara - you have to remember the stock they replaced dated from the 1920s - I'm told when they first appeared it was like the martians had landed.

When the V set was introduced it was marketed as "the most luxurious commuter stock in the world" - I think the last bush plum update is letting them go out in style.

 

[KK2109]

I suppose Taiwan Railway's EMU100 series is one of the less known examples.

It was developed from MK2 coaches and built by BREL York in 1970s.
They were part of the electrification program on Taiwan's Western Mainline, used on the newly introduced Tze-Chiang Limited Express

View attachment DSC09225.jpg
View attachment DSC09285.jpg

Unfortunately they were retired in 2018 and left in the above condition since...

 

[supervc-10]

Some of the most expensive and indeed deadly engineering mistakes of modern times have come from engineers making assumptions about design changes to already proven products, typically because they are seeking shortcuts due to cost pressures from above. The air crashes involving "extended" versions of airliners being one obvious example.

Whilst I agree with what you've said, not sure there are many crashes of 'extended' versions of airliners being due to the stretch. Boeing misleading pilots with the MCAS system, sure, but simple stretches are fine. A 737-800 is no less safe than the shorter -700. Still giving the MAX a couple of years wide berth, though!

 

[edwin_m]

I guess the "stretch" versions create more risk of a tail strike, but that's doesn't lead to human casualties as long as it's recognised immediately (before pressurisation) and properly repaired afterwards.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Whilst I agree with what you've said, not sure there are many crashes of 'extended' versions of airliners being due to the stretch. Boeing misleading pilots with the MCAS system, sure, but simple stretches are fine. A 737-800 is no less safe than the shorter -700. Still giving the MAX a couple of years wide berth, though!

I guess the "stretch" versions create more risk of a tail strike, but that's doesn't lead to human casualties as long as it's recognised immediately (before pressurisation) and properly repaired afterwards.

TBF I think @Fleetmaster used the word "stretch" to mean extending the life of the basic design rather than anything to do with its size. And it was a perfectly fair criticism as the basic architecture of the Boeing 737 dates all the way back to the 367 prototype of 1954!

 

[tomuk]

You like the Endeavours do you? I think they’re comfortable yet rather bland inside. I passed a triple set leaving Central this morning, a pair in Cityrail colours and one in NSW Trainlink. I don’t like the Hunters very much.


Yes, I was on a Mark 2 set out of Wellington last Friday. The refurbished ones with new seats and plugs are very pleasant, and much nicer than the small handful of original seat ones lacking pull down tables and charging points. They feel decades more modern than any Mark 2s ever have done in England. The doors are now automated but funnily enough look identical to the slam ones they had originally.


These I also went on last Wednesday in Auckland, not a big fan as they have a very Metro train style interior. I prefer the Metlink rivals out on the Wellington suburban network. You can even hang bikes on the front


Would have been an XPlorer on Sydney Canberra. Identical externally but with a far more comfortable interior suitable for much longer journeys, and a cafebar. The seating is very thick and well padded. Just a shame it takes you to such a miserable excuse for a capital city. It’s no secret I dislike Canberra.

View attachment 133413
This is an Endeavour set’s interior. As you can see, a lot more spartan that the interior of their long distance counterparts the XPlorer.

Well ABB owned both BREL and what was Comeng at the time, Comeng built the XPT as well as the Endeavours\Xplorers after ABB takeover. The Endeavours\Xplorers are a 'suped up' sprinter traction wise with a Cummins 19L and three speed Voith box, a sort of proto Class 180/185. So the possibilities of cross pollination with BREL are there.