THE NEW TGV M

[longhorn]

Did not see this posted. Interesting Alstom is essentially using the same power cars around the world. Amtrak's next gen Acela has the same power cars. Alstom stated acquisition costs had to be lowered so sharing the same basic train chassis or platform for International sales may be Alstom's way of keeping costs down.

May have to use Google Translate.

Voici le nouveau TGV M qui fera ses débuts vers le sud-est en 2024

Sur le site d’Alstom de La Rochelle, la nouvelle génération du train à grande vitesse a été dévoilée. Modulaire et économe, ce TGV de rupture doit être le bras armé de la SNCF pour doubler la part du train dans les transports en France.

www.bfmtv.com

 

[AngusH]

Fascinating, it looks just like the US model.

I guess if you like the shape better to keep using it.

And parts standardisation must be a good thing.

I wonder if there is perhaps some variation in the re-enforcement of the structure?
The US Acela were very heavily built IIRC to meet US regulations which don't apply in France.

 

[RichJF]

Did not see this posted. Interesting Alstom is essentially using the same power cars around the world. Amtrak's next gen Acela has the same power cars. Alstom stated acquisition costs had to be lowered so sharing the same basic train chassis or platform for International sales may be Alstom's way of keeping costs down.

May have to use Google Translate.

Voici le nouveau TGV M qui fera ses débuts vers le sud-est en 2024

Sur le site d’Alstom de La Rochelle, la nouvelle génération du train à grande vitesse a été dévoilée. Modulaire et économe, ce TGV de rupture doit être le bras armé de la SNCF pour doubler la part du train dans les transports en France.

www.bfmtv.com

I believe the power cars are standard globally, but the intermediate trailers are different.

The Avelia Liberty AFAIK uses trailers derived from the previous generation AGV & the SNCF order uses trailers derived from the TGV Duplex/POS.

 

[Austriantrain]

The main thing about the new power cars is that they are shorter, which makes it possible to have nine instead of eight trailers, thus increasing capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The main thing about the new power cars is that they are shorter, which makes it possible to have nine instead of eight trailers, thus increasing capacity.

If that's the aim why even have power cars, why not build a multiple unit? Then they could have ten.

 

[HSTEd]

If that's the aim why even have power cars, why not build a multiple unit? Then they could have ten.

Because despite the AGV work, building underfloor propulsion systems inside the TGV Duplex's comparatively restricted loading gauge is going to be a challenge.

Once you have gone double deck, there is no "free" underfloor volume any more, so I could well believe there won't be much saving from a multiple unit compared to a power car - and you would totally break backwards compatibility.

Remember SNCF has form for swapping trailers and power cars around mid-life.

 

[AlexNL]

The articulated design of TGVs will always impose limits on how long you can make a coach: a TGV Duplex trailer car is only 20.1m long, while an ICE 4 trailer car is 28.75m long.

The 11 car AGV units operated by NTV offer about 500 seats, which matches a 7 car ICE 4. A TGV Duplex seats 545. The TGV M is expected to increase the number of seats even further (depending on interior layout).

Going back to a single deck design would thus reduce capacity.

(And in my view, it'd degrade the passenger ambience.)

 

[longhorn]

Since the power units are standard now, I guess the Americans can actually say they are getting a TGV like train in the Acela.

 

[Austriantrain]

The articulated design of TGVs will always impose limits on how long you can make a coach: a TGV Duplex trailer car is only 20.1m long, while an ICE 4 trailer car is 28.75m long.

The 11 car AGV units operated by NTV offer about 500 seats, which matches a 7 car ICE 4. A TGV Duplex seats 545. The TGV M is expected to increase the number of seats even further (depending on interior layout).

Going back to a single deck design would thus reduce capacity.

(And in my view, it'd degrade the passenger ambience.)

The problem with the TGV Duplex, and that will not go away with the TGV M, are the very Long boarding times, due to having only one door per car for a large number of passengers. It works with SNCF‘s mode of operation, but not easily elsewhere, meaning that nobody else will ever buy these trains (unthinkable in Germany, and not only for patriotic reasons… the next gen ICE will still be single deck).

 

[nlogax]

The power car and trailer profiles actually match! Nice

 

[Snow1964]

If that's the aim why even have power cars, why not build a multiple unit? Then they could have ten.

Because you still need to find room for main transformers and inverters etc (most are triple or quadruple voltage to work to Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Italy). Each power car is around 5MW (about 6500HP) and even modern inverters of that rating aren’t going to fit under a low floor trailer car. I use term trailer, but actually distributed motors mean some might be motored. A typical 12car British EMU has less power than a single power car, and obviously lot less than 2 power cars so lots of electrical equipment to fit in.

When the TGV Duplex was designed, the catering car had higher floor (there are slopes up in corridor each end), and space underneath housed lots of of the trains auxiliaries as couldn’t fit them in the double deck cars.

 

[Austriantrain]

Because you still need to find room for main transformers and inverters etc (most are triple or quadruple voltage to work to Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Italy). Each power car is around 5.5MW (about 7000HP) and even modern inverters of that rating aren’t going to fit under a low floor trailer car. I use term trailer, but actually distributed motors mean some might be motored. A typical 12car British EMU has less power than a single power car, and obviously lot less than 2 power cars so lots of electrical equipment to fit in.

When the TGV Duplex was designed, the catering car had higher floor (there are slopes up in corridor each end), and space underneath housed lots of of the trains auxiliaries as couldn’t fit them in the double deck cars.

The SBB Twindexx (RABe 502) are Double-Deck EMUs with approx 600 seats on 200 meter length.

But apart from the fact they are not very reliable, they are only built für 200 kph and I am not sure you can upscale them for 320.

Would the Shinkansen E4-series maybe be an example of a successful high-speed DD EMU?

 

[popeter45]

as these are almost certain to be what thayls/soon to be renamed eurostar use when they finally replace the PBA/maybe even PBKA stock would they likly also be offered with single deck or would we see thalys move to double decker?
and as they will prob want a universal fleet for the current eurostar routes could these be certified for channel tunnel operations?

 

[Fragezeichnen]

So far there is no sign whatsoever of any operational integration beetween Thalys and Eurostar.
Eurostar sets are 16 coaches long, and Eurostar is firmly committed to the "run as few trains as possible with as many seats as possible" model. An 11 coach train doesn't fit in there at all.

 

[BahrainLad]

I thought the new Acela had Pendolino-derived trailers, not AGV?

 

[Austriantrain]

So far there is no sign whatsoever of any operational integration beetween Thalys and Eurostar.
Eurostar sets are 16 coaches long, and Eurostar is firmly committed to the "run as few trains as possible with as many seats as possible" model. An 11 coach train doesn't fit in there at all.

I think you misunderstood this. While the TGV-M has 2 power cars and 9 trailers, it is still only 202 meters long, so a „half-set“ in TSI terms that can run doubled-up - basically half as long as the E* 374. While I doubt E* needs additional sets for Channel tunnel services, they would be perfectly adequate for the Thalys side of operations.

 

[AdamWW]

I thought the new Acela had Pendolino-derived trailers, not AGV?

Based on the AGV. But with tilt, I believe.

 

[popeter45]

So far there is no sign whatsoever of any operational integration beetween Thalys and Eurostar.
Eurostar sets are 16 coaches long, and Eurostar is firmly committed to the "run as few trains as possible with as many seats as possible" model. An 11 coach train doesn't fit in there at all.

doubled up there would be a capacity for 1480 seats, about 50% more than a class 374 so could reduce number of required trains by a 1/3, also if ran as doubles could even run many Paris/Brussles services as one and split and Lille hence upping frequency to each end destination while simultainusly reducing tunnel transits

 

[Giugiaro]

The SBB Twindexx (RABe 502) are Double-Deck EMUs with approx 600 seats on 200 meter length.
But apart from the fact they are not very reliable, they are only built für 200 kph and I am not sure you can upscale them for 320.

The SBB Twindexx was trying to be too many things simultaneously.
Its unreliability stems from Bombardier being Bombardier and doing something even Stadler wanted to avoid getting involved in!

 

[quantinghome]

The best double-deck trains I've been on are the SNCB M6 / M7 carriages. Absolute monster capacity.

 

[Austriantrain]

doubled up there would be a capacity for 1480 seats, about 50% more than a class 374 so could reduce number of required trains by a 1/3, also if ran as doubles could even run many Paris/Brussles services as one and split and Lille hence upping frequency to each end destination while simultainusly reducing tunnel transits

And sell the 374 to Deutsche Bahn so that they can run decent services from Frankfurt to Brussels and Amsterdam?

 

[ac6000cw]

Fascinating, it looks just like the US model.

I guess if you like the shape better to keep using it.

And parts standardisation must be a good thing.

I wonder if there is perhaps some variation in the re-enforcement of the structure?
The US Acela were very heavily built IIRC to meet US regulations which don't apply in France.

Since the original Acela fleet was built, the FRA have introduced new crashworthiness standards for high-speed passenger equipment, which allow European-style 'Collison Energy Management' design techniques to be used (instead of the traditional emphasis on specifying very high end-loading requirements). This was done to allow basically off-the-shelf high-speed trains to be used in the US on suitable routes, up to 125mph on mixed-use lines and up to 220 mph on dedicated lines.

Summary of the FRA 'Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Standards for Alternative Compliance and High-Speed Trainsets' rule:

SUMMARY:​

This final rule amends FRA's passenger equipment safety standards using a performance-based approach to adopt new and modified requirements governing the construction of conventional- and high-speed passenger rail equipment. This final rule adds a new tier of passenger equipment safety standards (Tier III) to facilitate the safe implementation of nation-wide, interoperable high-speed passenger rail service at speeds up to 220 mph. While Tier III trainsets must operate in an exclusive right-of-way without grade crossings at speeds above 125 mph, these trainsets can share the right-of-way with freight trains and other tiers of passenger equipment at speeds not exceeding 125 mph. This final rule also establishes crashworthiness and occupant protection performance requirements in the alternative to those currently specified for Tier I passenger trainsets. Together, the Tier III requirements and Tier I alternative crashworthiness and occupant protection requirements remove regulatory barriers and enable use of new technological designs, allowing a more open U.S. rail market. Additionally, the final rule increases from 150 mph to 160 mph the maximum speed for passenger equipment that complies with FRA's Tier II requirements.

DATES:​

Effective date. This final rule is effective January 22, 2019.

 

[AngusH]

Thanks for the references!
I didn't know about these changes.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

The Avelia Liberty design predates "alternative compliance" and probably complies with the full FRA crashworthiness standards. Production of the prototypes began in 2017.

Avelia Liberty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ac6000cw]

The Avelia Liberty design predates "alternative compliance" and probably complies with the full FRA crashworthiness standards. Production of the prototypes began in 2017.

Avelia Liberty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A quote from that Wikipedia page:

The power cars include a Crash Energy Management system to help meet Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Tier-III standards while allowing a 30% reduction in train weight

The development of those new FRA standards started in 2009, and the 'proposed rule on standards for alternative compliance' was issued for consultation in December 6, 2016 (according to the FRA document I linked to above).

So I think it's highly likely the Avelia Liberty was designed to the 'alternative compliance' standards from the beginning.

 

[MarkyT]

The power car and trailer profiles actually match! Nice

The Amtrak power cars are coupled to tilting single-deck trailers. Because they ended up non-tilting, unlike the early computer-generated visualisations, there was bound to be some mismatch along the body profiles. These French double decker trailers don't need to tilt and couldn't anyway, so the body shape can be made to match more easily.

Because despite the AGV work, building underfloor propulsion systems inside the TGV Duplex's comparatively restricted loading gauge is going to be a challenge.

Once you have gone double deck, there is no "free" underfloor volume any more, so I could well believe there won't be much saving from a multiple unit compared to a power car - and you would totally break backwards compatibility.

Remember SNCF has form for swapping trailers and power cars around mid-life.

Alstom have also stated that concentrating traction equipment in a small number of power cars dramatically reduces complexity and, importantly, reduces costs. The articulated trailer bogies of the SNCF examples already have a comparatively high axle load, so avoiding the additional weight of traction motors on them makes some kind of sense.

 

[Austriantrain]

Alstom have also stated that concentrating traction equipment in a small number of power cars dramatically reduces complexity and, importantly, reduces costs. The articulated trailer bogies of the SNCF examples already have a comparatively high axle load, so avoiding the additional weight of traction motors on them makes some kind of sense.

An alternative might be something along the lines of the Desiro High Capacity: single-deck end cars, where all traction systems are concentrated, and double-deck intermediate cars. Indeed, for the Desiro HC Siemens stated that the single-deck end cars do not reduce capacity, because if they were double-deck, the same amount of space would be lost to accommodate traction systems.

I wonder however if the required power output could be fitted in such end cars (2 per set, with six trailers in between) for HS travel. We would maybe have found out if someone - DB eg - was interested in DD HS sets
(I was quite surprised to recently read that for the ICE5, DB plans to stay with single-deck entirely. While I understand the comfort issues, they will only have more capacity shortage in the future.)

 

[MarkyT]

An alternative might be something along the lines of the Desiro High Capacity: single-deck end cars, where all traction systems are concentrated, and double-deck intermediate cars. Indeed, for the Desiro HC Siemens stated that the single-deck end cars do not reduce capacity, because if they were double-deck, the same amount of space would be lost to accommodate traction systems.

I wonder however if the required power output could be fitted in such end cars (2 per set, with six trailers in between) for HS travel. We would maybe have found out if someone - DB eg - was interested in DD HS sets
(I was quite surprised to recently read that for the ICE5, DB plans to stay with single-deck entirely. While I understand the comfort issues, they will only have more capacity shortage in the future.)

Although not High Speed, it's interesting that Siemens have come to similar conclusions for the Desiro HCs, although they're not employing articulation techniques for the intermediate double deck trailer sets, perhaps partly for the flexibility to add and remove individual trailers, but also possibly for axle weight issues. Fascinating that the resistance to any bi-level on ICE trains continues, possibly also associated with slower boarding speed on fairly frequently stopping schedules on many DB HS corridors.

 

[Austriantrain]

Fascinating that the resistance to any bi-level on ICE trains continues, possibly also associated with slower boarding speed on fairly frequently stopping schedules on many DB HS corridors.

For that reason, the TGV M (or Duplex in general) would be completely unsuitable for DB; it’s boarding time is much too long.

But the Swiss - with frequent stops and very high passenger turnover - are doing well with their Double Deck Stock, and I suppose the Belgians too (and I observe the same with the WESTbahn Stadler KISS, extremely rapid boarding, much faster than the single deck Railjet).

A difference to DB might be that in Switzerland and Belgium, the amount of large luggage will be significantly lower, since travelled distances are so much shorter.

 

[MacCookie]

For that reason, the TGV M (or Duplex in general) would be completely unsuitable for DB; it’s boarding time is much too long.

But the Swiss - with frequent stops and very high passenger turnover - are doing well with their Double Deck Stock, and I suppose the Belgians too (and I observe the same with the WESTbahn Stadler KISS, extremely rapid boarding, much faster than the single deck Railjet).

A difference to DB might be that in Switzerland and Belgium, the amount of large luggage will be significantly lower, since travelled distances are so much shorter.

But then Switzerland doesn't do very-high-speed rail either really. The FV-Dosto is a 200km/h train. Their higher speed RABe 503s (250km/h) and RABe 501s (300km/h) are both single deckers (and can they reach their maximum speed in Switzerland? Have the GBT and CBT been authorised for 250km/h?).

Cheers,
Ewan