What makes Voyagers so inefficient?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train.

How about putting the driver in a vehicle of his own - without passengers - and putting all the power stuff and systems and crumple zone in there, and also allowing space for bicycles and passenger's luggage for longer journeys.   Vehicles like this on either end of a train with 4, 5, 7, 8 or even 9 intermediate unpowered carriages which could be swapped between day and night (sleeper) carriages, and perhaps have a mixture of higher density and lower density carriages depending on the diagram.  Commonality of power vehicle, power vehicles detachable for different servicing cycles.   Or is this just too radical?

[Western Pathfinder]

Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train.

How about putting the driver in a vehicle of his own - without passengers - and putting all the power stuff and systems and crumple zone in there, and also allowing space for bicycles and passenger's luggage for longer journeys.   Vehicles like this on either end of a train with 4, 5, 7, 8 or even 9 intermediate unpowered carriages which could be swapped between day and night (sleeper) carriages, and perhaps have a mixture of higher density and lower density carriages depending on the diagram.  Commonality of power vehicle, power vehicles detachable for different servicing cycles.   Or is this just too radical?

I think I've heard of something like this before only it was a long long time ago and was opperated by something called a Diesel Hydraulic ?....

[John R]

Another First group franchise will very soon be adopting exactly that model for some of its services. Although quite how many of the passenger benefits you suggest might ensue is yet to be seen.   

[broadgage]

Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train.

How about putting the driver in a vehicle of his own - without passengers - and putting all the power stuff and systems and crumple zone in there, and also allowing space for bicycles and passenger's luggage for longer journeys.   Vehicles like this on either end of a train with 4, 5, 7, 8 or even 9 intermediate unpowered carriages which could be swapped between day and night (sleeper) carriages, and perhaps have a mixture of higher density and lower density carriages depending on the diagram.  Commonality of power vehicle, power vehicles detachable for different servicing cycles.   Or is this just too radical?

Presumably these driving vehicles would only need a cab at one end, thereby slightly simplifying the design. Use of such a vehicle at each end of the train should give plenty of power and also "get you home" redundancy in the event of one failing. Some sort of remote control would be needed in order that one driver could control both driving vehicles.
A speed of 125 miles an hour should be entirely achievable, especially if the cab or driving end was streamlined or sloped.
Can anyone think of a suitable name for these new units, something perhaps that indicates the maximum service speed and also denotes that they are for longer journeys connecting major towns and cities.

[stuving]

Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train. This explains why 90mph trains such as the new Bombardier trains for Crossrail have sloped noses as do the 100mph Siemens' trains for Thameslink and the 100mph Hitachi electrics for Scotrail. There might be some difference in degree in the length of the nose depending on the energy which needs to be dissipated, but new build flat-fronted trains are a thing of the past.

I'm struggling to follow the logic of that.

The current regulations, from what I can work out of what's in EN 15227:2008, specify the driver's protection zone against a collision with a like train at a closing velocity of  36 km/hr (10 m/s). That's the same whatever the top speed of the train is. So whatever determines how pointy a train's nose is, it's not the collision survival rules varying with speed.

Trains built before that standard, or the TSI that enforces it, have noses of various shapes - Pendolinos' and Voyagers' not being exactly flat. While class 387s go almost as fast, I suspect that their "outer suburban" label means they don't need to look fast. In other words, nose shape was a mixture of real aerodynamics and marketing.

However, the point about all trains needing to now have noses is probably true. (Maybe that should be "soon", as it appears that the full application of the latest rules has not yet come into force.) This is from an IRJ article about the design of the Aventra (e.g. Crossrail) as a replacement for the Electrostar (e.g. 387):

Aventra retains the extruded aluminium bodyshell structure of the Electrostar, although there are a number of important changes in this area, particularly around the driver’s cab, where frontal impact absorption elements have been redesigned to meet crashworthiness standard specified in the Locomotives and Passenger Rolling Stock (Loc & Pas) TSI.

It's certainly not flat, though not as laid-back as some.
(Transport for London - about).jpg" alt="" border="0" />

[ray951]

Presumably these driving vehicles would only need a cab at one end, thereby slightly simplifying the design. Use of such a vehicle at each end of the train should give plenty of power and also "get you home" redundancy in the event of one failing. Some sort of remote control would be needed in order that one driver could control both driving vehicles.
A speed of 125 miles an hour should be entirely achievable, especially if the cab or driving end was streamlined or sloped.
Can anyone think of a suitable name for these new units, something perhaps that indicates the maximum service speed and also denotes that they are for longer journeys connecting major towns and cities.

I am not a marketing expert but do you think Inter-City 125 would work? or failing that High Speed Train or HST^▸ (High Speed Train) for short?
Any suggestions for colour schemes?

[Charles T]

Give  XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) the 800s


Keep the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) for us. 👍😜

[Charles T]

I love the 170s, travel on them GCR^» (Gloucester - next trains) - CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains) alot. I always avoid the Arriva services.

If you're taking 170s between Gloucester and Cardiff, you are travelling on Arriva services.

Arriva CrossCountry.

Oh ahaha.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train. This explains why 90mph trains such as the new Bombardier trains for Crossrail have sloped noses as do the 100mph Siemens' trains for Thameslink and the 100mph Hitachi electrics for Scotrail. There might be some difference in degree in the length of the nose depending on the energy which needs to be dissipated, but new build flat-fronted trains are a thing of the past.

I'm struggling to follow the logic of that.

The current regulations, from what I can work out of what's in EN 15227:2008, specify the driver's protection zone against a collision with a like train at a closing velocity of  36 km/hr (10 m/s). That's the same whatever the top speed of the train is. So whatever determines how pointy a train's nose is, it's not the collision survival rules varying with speed.

Thank you for the clarification. I had forgotten that the EN only defines one closing speed - it's some time since I read it! However I do seem to remember that at one point the driver could be placed within a strong shell but a few years ago this was changed so now he has to be behind it.

Trains built before that standard, or the TSI that enforces it, have noses of various shapes - Pendolinos' and Voyagers' not being exactly flat. While class 387s go almost as fast, I suspect that their "outer suburban" label means they don't need to look fast. In other words, nose shape was a mixture of real aerodynamics and marketing.

However, the point about all trains needing to now have noses is probably true. (Maybe that should be "soon", as it appears that the full application of the latest rules has not yet come into force.) This is from an IRJ article about the design of the Aventra (e.g. Crossrail) as a replacement for the Electrostar (e.g. 387):

Aventra retains the extruded aluminium bodyshell structure of the Electrostar, although there are a number of important changes in this area, particularly around the driver’s cab, where frontal impact absorption elements have been redesigned to meet crashworthiness standard specified in the Locomotives and Passenger Rolling Stock (Loc & Pas) TSI.

It's certainly not flat, though not as laid-back as some.
(Transport for London - about).jpg" alt="" border="0" />

[JayMac]

Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train. This explains why 90mph trains such as the new Bombardier trains for Crossrail have sloped noses as do the 100mph Siemens' trains for Thameslink and the 100mph Hitachi electrics for Scotrail. There might be some difference in degree in the length of the nose depending on the energy which needs to be dissipated, but new build flat-fronted trains are a thing of the past.

Did this design criteria apply to the Class 387? They're a new build yet don't appear to have a sloped front greater in rake than the older Class 377.

[John R]

I seem to recall comment that the production line was coming to the end because they didn't meet the latest requirements, and so I guess it got to the point whereby they were timed out in terms of new orders.

[paul7575]

Did this design criteria apply to the Class 387? They're a new build yet don't appear to have a sloped front greater in rake than the older Class 377.

I don't believe 387s have a different physical structure to the 377s - and are probably considered a run on Electrostar order for crash protection standards.
The separate class number is more to do with their electronic systems not being capable of multiple working with the various 377 sub-classes.

Paul

[4064ReadingAbbey]

Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train. This explains why 90mph trains such as the new Bombardier trains for Crossrail have sloped noses as do the 100mph Siemens' trains for Thameslink and the 100mph Hitachi electrics for Scotrail. There might be some difference in degree in the length of the nose depending on the energy which needs to be dissipated, but new build flat-fronted trains are a thing of the past.

Did this design criteria apply to the Class 387? They're a new build yet don't appear to have a sloped front greater in rake than the older Class 377.

As I understand it, the requirements of the EN refer to new designs of stock. Existing designs may continue to be manufactured but only up to a cut-off date.

As Bombardier are changing over to their 'Aventra' platform I suspect that Electrostars will soon cease production.