Feasibility study: Bombardier to fit crosscountry class 220/221's with pantograph cars

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

Why would any contract go to Bombardier?

Because I'm sure Bombardier have the original crayon drawings for the 22x stock somewhere in their possession. 

[paul7575]

And because Bombadier built the original trains.  It's their design.  I doubt any other manufacturer would even bother to tender - should tendering even be necessary to lengthen an existing fleet?

I really don't think it is necessary for a tender to be issued for what would be a modification to an existing unit.  What could be necessary is a financing tender, but even then that would only seem sensible if the Rosco stayed the same - because the Rosco deals with the long term maintenance of the units.

The original build contract was between the Rosco and Bombardier - and as we mostly suspect, the reason the end cars were A and F on the 220/221 fleet as delivered was probably to allow for them to be lengthened (as well as making reservations compatible). 

It is possible (although I admit it's not likely) that there is an extant contract allowing for a future call-off of more intermediate carriages.

Paul

[Btline]

Because I'm sure Bombardier have the original crayon drawings for the 22x stock somewhere in their possession. 

Nah - the plans were drawn using wax crayons.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

so would this just be the 4 car units or are we also including the 5 car units making them 6 car ... also with the 221's i hope despite the fact that tilt has been deactivated that the new stock will have the capability just incase !

[paul7575]

For capacity reasons it would seem to be great to have loads of 6 car Voyagers, but I can think of two potential issues.  One is whether or not only 4 carriages with diesel engines out of 6 could accelerate and move the train properly. (I expect 5 engines from 6 is intuitively OK though.) Secondly, without major infrastructure work running two 6 car units in multiple would be problematical, as your typical 'full length' platform is only good for 12 x 20m carriages, not 12 x 23m.  Unless of course you gave them SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) to individual carriage level - like SN have - but that is a bit awkward if typical XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) pax travelling with the kitchen sink have to heave their luggage half way round the train, but OTOH^▸ (On The Other Hand) it is not that far removed from FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s with SDO is it.

I suspect if it was to happen you'd end up with 5 car 220s, 6 car 221s, and only 220s would ever run in pairs - just because that seems the most straightforward solution...

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

One is whether or not only 4 carriages with diesel engines out of 6 could accelerate and move the train properly.

There's huge engine redundancy built in to the design.  Voyagers regularly run around with an engine or two out and can pretty much keep to the schedules.  A worst general case scenario would be two engines out in a 5-car train, i.e. only two working, and even then I don't think there would be more than a few minutes delay - after all, there wouldn't be many sections of what would be the diesel powered routes that are passed for more than 110mph.  I've driven an Adelante (similar power) with only two engines working before with little noticeable delay and even managed to reach over 100mph with the bugger.

[Ollie]

And lets not forget that additional Win,

Able to keep running when the Wires are down!

Unless they are covering the track of course.

[broadgage]

Sounds a good idea, but things do not allways work out so well in practice.
Voyagers are still nasty though ! even with an extra vehicle.

If this goes ahead, could two sets run in multiple on electric power ? I though that at more than 100MPH only one pantograph could be used on a train.

[Tim]

.
 I though that at more than 100MPH only one pantograph could be used on a train.

That is my understandig too.  The first pantograph "wobbles" the wire and the second pantograph therefore has trouble with maintainign good contact.   

The only UK^▸ (United Kingdom) trains with two pantographs are the Eurostar stains, but the distance between the two locos is so far that this isn't such an issue (plus OL tension is higher on HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel))

O

[paul7575]

The question of multiple pantograph effects at greater than 100 mph is being addressed with various ongoing trials.  ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) are about to repeat earlier trials with a Cl 91 loco on both ends of a train, and LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) have just issued an ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) to trial 3 pans in use on 3 x 350s running at 110 mph - obviously 12 car EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) sets already run with 3 pans up at 100 mph routinely, on the southern sections of the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and ECML.  It is probable that there isn't a sudden cutoff speed at exactly 100 mph though,  it's just that's the max speed normal EMUs have historically had.

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) the 2 x 91 trial is a repeat, previously undertaken in 2008, and is specifically about running 2 x 5 car IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) together, presumably this would be the outer pans on the overall 10 car train.

Paul 

[inspector_blakey]

I'm ready to be shot down here by those who know better than I do, but I could have sworn that 390s on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) operate with two pantographs up...

[Tim]

I'm ready to be shot down here by those who know better than I do, but I could have sworn that 390s on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) operate with two pantographs up...

I don't know about that I'm affraid.  Seems odd to be though because it would be unnecessary becaus ethe 390 has traction current conductors running the whole length of the train anyway to deliver power to traction motors in intermediate vehicles.

 

[Tim]

even if muliple 220 couldn;t run with two pans up, I am not sure that would be a show stopper.

A minority of 220s run in multiple, and of those that do one might imagine that the unit with the pan up could provide a majority to the power anyway with the non-pan up vehicle only needing to use its engines during accelaration.

[paul7575]

I'm ready to be shot down here by those who know better than I do, but I could have sworn that 390s on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) operate with two pantographs up...

I don't know about that I'm affraid.  Seems odd to be though because it would be unnecessary becaus ethe 390 has traction current conductors running the whole length of the train anyway to deliver power to traction motors in intermediate vehicles.

I won't say they can't run with two pans up, but they don't in normal circumstances.  As you say there'd be no advantage to having both up, as there is an HV busline connecting the two pan fitted cars, but they are also probably far too close in terms of their on train positions at 125 mph (3 and 7 of the 9 car train, which will become 3 and 9 of the 11 car version).  That is a major difference to the 2 x Cl 91 trial, where the two pans have 9 cars between them...

Paul

[woody]

Bombardier could be thrown a lifeline by the Department for Transport (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) with a ^120m train order that would preserve hundreds of jobs at the manufacturer's Derby plant.A DfT spokesperson said: "The DfT is looking into the possibility of upgrading the existing fleet of diesel CrossCountry Voyager trains by adding an additional carriage with a pantograph. This would enable the upgraded train to run using electric power provided by the overhead lines. We have asked the industry to lead a short initial study into whether this is technically feasible and whether there would be a good business case, which provided value for money."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/11/bombardier-120m-crosscountry-trains-deal