Potential bidders for the next Greater Western franchise

[whole diary]

[anthony215]

Think we need to think about suppliers for new rolling stock very carefully....70018

Are we looking for aesthetics or practicality for the modern age and future?   I would be happy to see "Flying Dutchman" or "Fugly" running a financially sound, reliable, frequent, safe service on the line that serves our town.  I would be equally happy to see the service run by sprinters / pacers displaced by South Wales valley electrification, or by push-pull units with a Compton and 3 x A class carriages of goodness-knows what vintage which are currently being scrapped.

Has there been a particular issue with new 70018??

Reading a number of responses [to the consultation] I've been copied on, the concentration has been on service levels and providing good connections and practical systems to support them and ensure that all the ducks line up to make a big success. In fact I can't recall any that specify stock type - that's a luxury we can compromise on; the nearest one response came was in asking for trains that are uniform with others at work in the area, in support of looking after them with a common pool of engineering knowledge and the ability to share backup and standby units during heavy service / repairs, etc


I think 70018 was the loco that caught fire yesterday and did cause some disruption for SWT^▸ (South West Trains)

[The SprinterMeister]

Think we need to think about suppliers for new rolling stock very carefully....70018

Are we looking for aesthetics or practicality for the modern age and future?   I would be happy to see "Flying Dutchman" or "Fugly" running a financially sound, reliable, frequent, safe service on the line that serves our town.  I would be equally happy to see the service run by sprinters / pacers displaced by South Wales valley electrification, or by push-pull units with a Compton and 3 x A class carriages of goodness-knows what vintage which are currently being scrapped.

Has there been a particular issue with new 70018??

If we are bringing back steam traction then you are doing the firing, oiling round / ashpan emptying and dome polishing. I don't sign any of that.

70018 had some kind of fire in its engine compartment which, from what I can gather was caused by a fuel leak on the engine causing fuel to get onto the exhaust / turbochargers and ignite.

Not quite sure what this has to do with the perils of buying modern equipment as the exact cause of the fuel leak isn't known.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

But coupled with the fact that this ain't a new problem....

[The SprinterMeister]

Turning a class 47 into a class 57 constitutes in my book 'a fairly major refurbishment'

Certainly does. In the past I've referred to my hypothetical 47s with new engines and TDM as 57/7s.

As we use AC main power generation these days you have to provide a traction rectifier to supply your DC^▸ (Direct Current) motors which means all the space in the boiler compartment on 57's is occupied with erm.. Rectifiers!. Not sure where your TDM box is going, on the roof or under the secondmans side seat? As mentioned before the class 57 ETS^▸ (Electric Train Supply) contactors / switching is outside on the bottom of the loco due to lack of space inside.

What are the advantages of having the engines generate a different sort of power to the sort the traction motors need? Does it really have to be done that way, or can you avoid the rectifiers (or is there any component that 47s had but is superceeded with smaller equipment these days) to make some space for TDM gear? Otherwise, it'll have to be new locos, unless there's a way to fit TDM and train electricity supplies to stored frieght locos, which I doubt.

AC main power generation gives you the advantage of one less set of brushes to maintain and removes the possibility of electrical 'flashovers' which were an ever present risk with DC main generators. You may not be old enough to remember class 50 but suffice to say the main generator was the biggest single source of problems. Alternators can be controlled accurrately using smaller control modules and solid state kit which you can't really do with the much larger sperate field windings on DC main generators. I think its only about 10 amps excitation current into the exciter stator on a class 57/6 running at full bifters / top speed. AC machines are generally smaller and can run faster than their AC counterparts. The only penalty you pay is having to have a recitifer which given the other advantages isn't a problem. I think in this day and age a proposal to re-engineer 50 year old loco's and retain DC power generation (in order to come up with some sort of loco to avoid having Bi-Mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)) having would be laughed at and not taken further. Your 57/7 would in fact end up much the same as a class 57/3 or class 57/6 inside (complete with alternato and rectifier) but with a Tier III compliant engine instead of a refurbished ex US Navy engine. If you go and have a look round the inside a 57/6 you will see there is a place for everything and everything has its place, nothing that isn't required (like Vaccum brake gubbins) is in there and everything is the size and weight it needs to be.

To be honest I think the public wouldn't be impressed at some proposal to drag them around at sub warp speeds to Swansea with some kind of re-engineered 50 year old loco either. 57/3 did struggle a bit (and still does on Saturdays only) with a Pendolino on the back.

[The SprinterMeister]

But coupled with the fact that this ain't a new problem....

What do you mean it isn't a new problem?

Any new design of diesel engine takes a while to settle down. Seem to remember there were one or two firey issues with MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit)'s in the early days, although this was to do with the fitting of the engines into the power cars as much as anything, (screws getting left in intake ducts etc). Genbacher lumps aren't a new design per se but this is its first rail application as a common rail diesel engine for traction use as opposed to being a stationary spark ignition natural gas burner. Bound to be one or two issues to sort out.

[The SprinterMeister]

With the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) to Weston, there'd be no 'faffing around' taking one loco off and putting another on like there would be with the IC225s at Swansea, the IEP just runs up to the waiting loco and attaches. That'd take about 3 minutes surely, not 10. Heading for London would be a bit more of a problem (unless the loco can be driven from the cab of the IEP), but still wouldn't take 10 minutes (as I say, you should be able to swap locos on an IC225 set given that time).

You don't sign Bristol Temple Meads either do you?

The platforms are split using a St Andrews Cross as the demarcation point between platforms rather than signals. The signalling does not allow trains to run through one platform and into another under permissive working, the interlocking prevents it. The train first draws up to the St Andrews Cross at the end of the first platform and is then given verbal authourity to pass the St Andrews Cross and enter the occupied second platform.

Three minutes to do all that and couple on? Nearer ten I think.....

[Rhydgaled]

Your 57/7 would in fact end up much the same as a class 57/3 or class 57/6 inside (complete with alternato and rectifier) but with a Tier III compliant engine instead of a refurbished ex US Navy engine. If you go and have a look round the inside a 57/6 you will see there is a place for everything and everything has its place, nothing that isn't required (like Vaccum brake gubbins) is in there and everything is the size and weight it needs to be.

A more reliable 57 with TDM is basically exactly what I was thinking with the 57/7. To get the reliability I'd consider replacing everything except the bodyshell. If it wouldn't work right build some new locos for the job.

To be honest I think the public wouldn't be impressed at some proposal to drag them around at sub warp speeds to Swansea with some kind of re-engineered 50 year old loco either. 57/3 did struggle a bit (and still does on Saturdays only) with a Pendolino on the back.

I'd be supprised if they get on an Intercity 125 at the moment and be more unimpressed than they are with 150s, 153s and the odd Pacer. I think they would be more unimpressed still if the London train was withdrawn due to IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) coaches being too long, leaving them with 2-car DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) (150s and pacers). Perhaps if they had something like a Voyager instead of the IC125, they wouldn't be quite as unimpressed as being stuck with a 150, but the current IC125 would be much nicer than a Voyager. As far as the public is concerned, an IC225 with a diesel loco instead of the class 91 wouldn't be much of a change from an IC125 (except that IC225s have power doors). In passenger terms, the quality of a IC125 or IC225 is much greater than any DMU.

Unlike an IC125 (or worse, something with underfloor diesel engines) the diesel fuel and engine would not have to travel under the wires from Swansea to London if you use my IC225 idea, a 140mph, electric, class 91 would take over. Under the wires, an IC225 might accelerate slower than a IEP, but that's one reason why I made sure there were fewer stops for Swansea trains, so the IC225s can run at their top speed (as fast as an IEP's) for more of the time.

You don't sign Bristol Temple Meads either do you?

The platforms are split using a St Andrews Cross as the demarcation point between platforms rather than signals. The signalling does not allow trains to run through one platform and into another under permissive working, the interlocking prevents it. The train first draws up to the St Andrews Cross at the end of the first platform and is then given verbal authourity to pass the St Andrews Cross and enter the occupied second platform.

Three minutes to do all that and couple on? Nearer ten I think.....

Fair enough, I don't know the working arangments at Bristol Temple Meads. This would be a hell of a lot easier if the government weren't being so stingy with the electrification programe. Building bi-mode IEPs, unless they add pantograph cars to ALL the class 22x units, retain quite a few IC125s, increase the scope of their electrification considerablly and still need more diesel Intercity trains (which I doubt) is totally unacceptable in my opinion, given the need to cut greenhouse gas emmisions.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

Design costs money, building new units/locos with proven designs would be a lot cheaper, even with some modernisation and improvements this would solve the problem of running new units with unknown faults to find while in service at a significantly lower cost, the latest batch of 390's how much more would it have cost for a new design?  The class 158 why can't we build more with better disabled access it's a proven design

[Rhydgaled]

The class 158 why can't we build more with better disabled access it's a proven design

In my opinion, if we are going to build DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) at all, 158s are what we need. I think they are cheaper and lighter than the 17x DMUs, and look as modern. Being lighter, they should also be more fuel efficent, just what we need if wires aren't going to spring up everywhere.

[anthony215]

Design costs money, building new units/locos with proven designs would be a lot cheaper, even with some modernisation and improvements this would solve the problem of running new units with unknown faults to find while in service at a significantly lower cost, the latest batch of 390's how much more would it have cost for a new design?  The class 158 why can't we build more with better disabled access it's a proven design

I do agree that we should be able to build more class 158's no doubt one of the best dmu's to have ever been built.

In fact I must admit that CSRE pacesetter unit does remind me a bit of the class 158's if only the passenger doors were at the end of the carriages.


By the way who wons the design's for the class 158? as it would be great if the design could be modified to suit todays requirements such as DDA^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) compliant toilets etc

[The SprinterMeister]

The class 158 why can't we build more with better disabled access it's a proven design

In my opinion, if we are going to build DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) at all, 158s are what we need. I think they are cheaper and lighter than the 17x DMUs, and look as modern. Being lighter, they should also be more fuel efficent, just what we need if wires aren't going to spring up everywhere.

The 158's were built down to a weight (and a cost with the phase two batch from 158815 onwards). How many 158's do you go on in high summer where the air con works properly on all vehicles?

The design only just met the crashworthiness standards of it's time and would most certainly not meet the current standards for new build DMU rolling stock.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

Never been on a 158/9 with faulty air con... Maybee got lucky

[JayMac]

The 158's were built down to a weight (and a cost with the phase two batch from 158815 onwards). How many 158's do you go on in high summer where the air con works properly on all vehicles?

Am I right in thinking that the 158 aircon was built by a company on the Isle if Wight? Sure I've seen a panel under the seats that says, 'Temperature Ltd, Isle of Wight'

[Rhydgaled]

How many 158's do you go on in high summer where the air con works properly on all vehicles?

I can think of only one time when I've been uncomfortably hot in a 158 with failed aircon (as it happened the guard couldn't make the windows open either). Anyway, I nearly added a comment about putting more relibable air-con in any new 158s in my post.

Being lighter and cheaper, I think 158s are just what is needed (we have plenty of heavy, suburban door-layout, 170s and 172, but the only recent regional express units we have are the 175s, which are heavier and more expensive than 158s and not nearly as flexible (or visually appealing) thanks to the lack of corridor-connections on the cab).

[The SprinterMeister]

Being lighter and cheaper, I think 158s are just what is needed (we have plenty of heavy, suburban door-layout, 170s and 172, but the only recent regional express units we have are the 175s, which are heavier and more expensive than 158s and not nearly as flexible (or visually appealing) thanks to the lack of corridor-connections on the cab).

You cannot say class 158 is cheaper than the current DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) offerings as they are no longer being built today. The factory which built them now after a couple of changes of ownership produces class 17x and 37x. You would not be allowed to build class 158's to the exact spec nowadays as they do not comply with the crashworthiness requirements for new builds of rolling stock. The newer builds are heavier as they have stronger bodyshells to meet the requirements. Class 158 had one or two structural issues which required modification after entering service, the bodyshell and some of the strngthening members underneath being a little too lightwight in places. One senior Regional Railways manager referred to class 158's as 'Garden Shed Engineering' although much work has been done to them since then. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) units have the earlier 'Temperature / Westinghouse' type aircon although some units have recieved the more reliable 'Liebherr' air con at various times. The units numbered higher than 158815 had a far less reliable 'EBAC' aircon system fitted at build to save money, fortunately none of these units run for FGW any more.