Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
 today - GWRA Auction, Pershore
21/11/2018 - First Bath Bus panel
21/11/2018 - Consultation end - Angel Road
26/11/2018 - TransWilts Board and Members
26/11/2018 - Bath Clean Air consult ends
28/11/2018 - Melksham RUG
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail News GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
November 17, 2018, 08:37:38 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[193] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[43] Four track for Filton Bank - ongoing discussion
[36] Closure of Old Oak Common (81A) December 2018
[30] Use of senior railcards at peak times
[28] Cornwall signalling upgrade - ongoing discussion, merged topic...
[23] Vale of Berkeley Railway
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Rolling stock perspective 2018: DfT's aspirations for the rail sector  (Read 1154 times)
Lee
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6208

He who laughs last hasn't got all the facts.


View Profile
« on: October 27, 2018, 01:46:33 am »

Department for Transport's perspective on rolling stock and their aspirations for the rail sector from 2018 onward - here
Logged

Currently muddling along the Guingamp-Carhaix line
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22486



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2018, 05:28:09 am »

Department for Transport's perspective on rolling stock and their aspirations for the rail sector from 2018 onward - here

Some very interesting perspectives in a document which I note is dated October 2018



More 153s than I thought
No IETs shown at all
387s now diesel ...

I do worry that if that's what Jo Johnson thinks are running the trains in the South West this month, does he have a proper basis for making good decisions about changes for the future?

To give readers another franchise to compare against ...

Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Member of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and some more things besides
martyjon
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1237


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2018, 06:30:59 am »

which only confirms the incompetence of the DfT.
Logged
CharlieGlos
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 258


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2018, 09:49:12 am »

There is only 6 153s in the fleet.
Logged

Regular GWR user between Gloucester and Swindon.
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3497


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2018, 02:03:29 pm »

I think I can see what they've tried to do with the Great Western figures. Rather than picking a date during the current change-over and trying to find out what's in the fleet at that time, they have chosen to represent the "before" figures and pretend electrification isn't happening yet. That probably explains why there are all the HSTs with none gone for conversion, no IETs, and no electric fleet for the 387s to belong to.

That's not a stupid idea, though they ought to have put in a note to say so! Most of those figures can be taken from the lists in the franchise agreement, with some perhaps updated a bit. Some of the numbers still look wrong, though - but without that statement of their basis I can't be sure.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2018, 02:45:46 pm by stuving » Logged
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 148


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2018, 08:33:44 pm »

The document from the Rolling Stock Strategic Steering Group, to which there is a link, is rather more revealing. Apart from a worthy commitment to improving access for the disabled, much in the DfT publication skirts around, or does not address issues raised by the RSSSG document. Also, one issue that many forum members are concerned about (5 across seating), does not get a mention.

Read together the following seem to be the issues that really need to be addressed-

1 - the delay/cancellation of electrification has thrown the orderly cascading of stock into confusion. It looks like we will have a shortage of "self-propelled" (diesel) trains and a surplus of electric units, which will go off lease to be stored or scrapped before they are life expired

2 - electric trains are the most reliable, cheapest to build and run. Bi-modes cost more, and the alternatives are still untried or in development. It is as if BR said that they were relying on gas-turbine technology in the 1950s to replace steam to avoid investing in electrification.

3 - there is policy double-speak. If they are really committed to reducing emissions from rail transport the answer is to bite the bullet, investigate properly what has gone wrong with the GWML project and press on to catch up with our European neighbours in electrifying all our main lines. If diesels have to be kept going to cover the gap, why not simply re-engine with Euro-6/Stage 111B compliant engines to prolong their life, rather than expensive rebuilds as diesel electric bi-modes/ hydrogen etc?

4 - the greater cost of bi-modes presumably will be reflected in higher lease charges, hitting franchise margins, which are clearly under pressure. Their greater complexity does not indicate long term relaibility either.

Plenty to think about.....
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3497


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2018, 09:19:31 pm »

The document from the Rolling Stock Strategic Steering Group, to which there is a link, is rather more revealing. Apart from a worthy commitment to improving access for the disabled, much in the DfT publication skirts around, or does not address issues raised by the RSSSG document. Also, one issue that many forum members are concerned about (5 across seating), does not get a mention.

I've never understood what these DfT documents - brochures, really, are for. A lot of what they call for is already being done, in some cases with so little dissent it's not mentioned. The rest is, largely, pro-apple pie waffle.

It probably would make more sense of DfT directly addressed the preceding RSSSG report, saying what from their viewpoint is missing from it.

One other point -
If diesels have to be kept going to cover the gap, why not simply re-engine with Euro-6/Stage 111B compliant engines to prolong their life, rather than expensive rebuilds as diesel electric bi-modes/ hydrogen etc?

The RSSSG report has a lot on that topic. In the past they said a IIIB engine just wouldn't fit under an existing train, being a lot bigger than the old ones. They now don't quite say that, but it certainly wouldn't be a direct one for one replacement, but an expensive moving around of all the bits. Given the preference for a bi-mode if there is some electricity to be had, and for electric drives, refitting old (or not-so-old) EMUs may not look so costly.

What they do say this year is that as the old engines can legally be used for many years to come, the business case for replacing them doesn't look good. By implication, only if the use of dirty old engines is made expensive or illegal quite soon would that alter.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3031


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2018, 08:26:08 am »

4 - the greater cost of bi-modes presumably will be reflected in higher lease charges, hitting franchise margins, which are clearly under pressure. Their greater complexity does not indicate long term relaibility either.

Yes to me investment in bi-modes only makes sense in the context of an on-going programme of electrification. With bi-modes eventually being replaced by fully electric trains and the bi-modes cascaded to other part electrified lines. 

What they do say this year is that as the old engines can legally be used for many years to come, the business case for replacing them doesn't look good. By implication, only if the use of dirty old engines is made expensive or illegal quite soon would that alter.

So one part of government will only support replacement of old diesel engines to improve air quality if another part of government makes it illegal not to!
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3497


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2018, 09:08:18 am »

So one part of government will only support replacement of old diesel engines to improve air quality if another part of government makes it illegal not to!

RSSSG isn't part of government - it's "the rail industry", and Network Rail is its only member to be a government body.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3031


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2018, 02:42:15 pm »

So one part of government will only support replacement of old diesel engines to improve air quality if another part of government makes it illegal not to!

RSSSG isn't part of government - it's "the rail industry", and Network Rail is its only member to be a government body.

No but DfT is, and they will say whether they will fund TOCs to make the change.
Logged
Lee
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6208

He who laughs last hasn't got all the facts.


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2018, 10:16:30 am »

From RAIL Magazine:

Quote from: RAIL Magazine
The use of lightweight, refreshed and re-purposed vehicles could strengthen the case for reopening disused lines, according to the Department for Transport.

In its Rolling Stock Perspective Fourth Edition, published on October 25, the DfT highlights the hydrogen-powered Class 321's from Alstom, Vivarail’s hybrid Class 230s, and Angel Trains’ Class 165 HyDrive trains (RAIL 862).

“These vehicles…offered to the market at competitive rates, could strengthen the case for the reopening of disused lines,” it says.

“As the demand for housing and business premises that are well-connected to the main line increases, the reopening of these old alignments would invigorate local services.”

The DfT has also called for measures to be put in place to reduce pollution at source, suggesting auto engine stop-start software, electric launch systems and station shore supplies could all be used during long dwell periods.

DfT adds: “We expect train owners and manufacturers to further develop proposals to convert their existing or future diesel trains to bi-mode or use an alternative energy source to diesel.”

The taskforce created to investigate the decarbonisation of the railways by 2040 (RAIL 847) will follow up its initial findings next year, with a final report incorporating an economic appraisal and route map to deliver its recommendations.

Talking of Class 230's - From Railway Gazette:

Quote from: Railway Gazette
The three two-car D-Train diesel multiple-units which Vivarail is producing for London Northwestern Railway will not enter service in December as had been planned, the supplier announced on October 30.

The Class 230 DMUs are being produced using the bodyshells and bogies from former London Underground D78 metro trains. Vivarail said the time taken to optimise the control systems on the first unit had delayed work on the next two, and this meant the fleet would not be ready for the December timetable change.

Thanking London Northwestern Railway for its patience and help with resolving the ‘few remaining problems’, Vivarail said it was confident that the DMUs would be ready for service in the New Year.

Jonny Wiseman, Head of Stations for London Northwestern Railway, said the operator was disappointed by the news. ‘We want to reassure passengers that we will continue to run  the Bedford – Bletchley service with existing trains until the Vivarail units are available’, he said. ‘The Class 230 programme is an innovative scheme that will deliver many benefits to local rail users. We will continue to support Vivarail in bringing this new concept to the Marston Vale Line.’

Vivarail CEO Adrian Shooter said his experience in the rail industry meant he was ‘fully aware of the problems that can occur when introducing new trains and that one unforeseen event can easily overturn months or even years of planning. That is the case here and at Vivarail we hold our hands up to that fact.’

The D-Train is intended to be a low-cost option for lightly used routes. The DMUs for the Bedford – Bletchley line are to have accessible toilets, USB sockets and face-to-back seating. They will have automatic engine cut-out at stations, and be capable of future conversion to battery power.

Wales & Borders franchisee KeolisAmey has also ordered five three-car diesel-battery multiple-units for use on the Wrexham – Bidston, Conwy Valley and Chester – Crewe routes from mid-2019.
Logged

Currently muddling along the Guingamp-Carhaix line
ray951
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 233


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2018, 10:48:41 am »

I love this bit:
DfT adds: “We expect train owners and manufacturers to further develop proposals to convert their existing or future diesel trains to bi-mode or use an alternative energy source to diesel.”

Can anybody give me an example of this, as currently all the conversions are from electric to diesel (e.g. classes 230, 769, 800 and 802) not the other way round? Surely most diesel trains should be converted to or replaced by electric but of course this won't happen as this whole debate is being driven by ideology at the DfT and Treasury. Currently the DfT and Treasury are lead by idelogues who believe that the public sector is always bad and the private sector is always good and of course there is also the fetishisation of the fiscal deficit.

So basically it boils down to this, we can't do electrification because that is infrastructure and would typically paid for by the government and we don't want to do that; so instead we must convert existing trains as that will be paid for by private companies and that is good.


Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3031


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2018, 12:26:30 pm »

Can anybody give me an example of this, as currently all the conversions are from electric to diesel (e.g. classes 230, 769, 800 and 802) not the other way round?

Since almost all diesel units have mechanical transmission it is very difficult to convert them to bi-mode. There is also often very little space for extra equipment.

However with electric trains it is often possible to fit a generator set in the space available that can feed the existing traction motors, so it is a much more practical option.

The exception is the Midland Mainline Class 222 trains which are diesel electric I believe and therefore should be very easy to convert. 
Logged
paul7755
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4530


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2018, 12:46:11 pm »

Can anybody give me an example of this, as currently all the conversions are from electric to diesel (e.g. classes 230, 769, 800 and 802) not the other way round?

Since almost all diesel units have mechanical transmission it is very difficult to convert them to bi-mode. There is also often very little space for extra equipment.

However with electric trains it is often possible to fit a generator set in the space available that can feed the existing traction motors, so it is
The exception is the Midland Mainline Class 222 trains which are diesel electric I believe and therefore should be very easy to convert. 
It was said Class 220/221, (Voyagers), were easy to convert by ‘simply adding a pantograph & transformer carriage’ but no one could ever convince the DfT it was cost effective.  I doubt 222s would have a significantly different analysis.

Paul
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants