Running out of train building work - time to replace GW near-heritage units?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From The Business Desk

Around 2,000 people in Derby could lose their jobs at the end of the year if a train assembly plant is mothballed.

The warning comes amid reports that Britain’s largest train assembly plant at Alstom’s Litchurch Lane in the city could run out of work because of delays to the build of rolling stock for the HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) project.

I wonder if that might offer a window of opportunity to build replacements for older local and regional trains such as the class 150, 165 and 166 which we still have running in the South West, with just a few class 150 retained as "heritage" units for promotion of minor destinations such as was done with the slammers to Lymington.  Potential destinations for 150 heritage include Minehead, Kingswear and Bodmin General from an Exeter base.

* You are looking at around 275 vehicles in class 150 with the first batch entering service nearly 40 years ago in 1984.

[Red Squirrel]

But what would these replacements be? New diesel units would presumably be a lot cleaner than the existing fleet, but would bake in diesel traction for decades. Something like a Stadler FLIRT, with a modular power pack, seems like a better bet. Do Alstom offer anything similar?

[grahame]

But what would these replacements be? New diesel units would presumably be a lot cleaner than the existing fleet, but would bake in diesel traction for decades. Something like a Stadler FLIRT, with a modular power pack, seems like a better bet. Do Alstom offer anything similar?

I don't know.  But there's options such as building under license for something like the FLIRT, and multimode technology.  Part of me thinks of the benefits of a common fleet - GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) have a nightmare at present with IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train), HST^▸ (High Speed Train), Turbo and Sprinters not sharing spares and not even coupling (witness operational limitations on the Severn-Solent subnetwork).  Another part of me does not want a single fleet with a single point of systemic failure in the unlkely(!) event of there being an issue such as cracking, filters clogging, or sea water incursion ...

[Ralph Ayres]

There can be compatibility without everything being identical, as was the case for much of the railways' history.  Southern Region's set-up which allowed pretty much all their stock including diesel, electric, battery and unpowered locos and carriages to be coupled/uncoupled in what seemed like a few seconds and driven interchangeably gave a particularly high degree of flexibility, which was put to good use.

The lack of any ability to couple different types of train together (not just the physical link but all the associated software that lets the trains talk to each other) really has gone too far, partly a result of the way new trains are procured.  It could be solved by having a common standard, maybe even specified by a publicly-owned body, but that would probably be deemed to limit innovation and possibly increase the price of bids submitted as the manufacturers couldn't just use their own pet design.  It would also give the manufacturers a get-out clause if the spec wasn't perfect and caused (real or perceived) problems when connecting trains together.

...and I suspect using old slam door trains on the Lymington branch was as much a pragmatic response to a shortage of suitable stock as a deliberate promotional activity, though SWT^▸ (South West Trains) then did make the most of the opportunity.

[broadgage]

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), New stock should be primarily designed as 25kv EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit), with a diesel engine in one vehicle to power the traction motors when away from OHLE.
As electrification eventually spreads this engine would see less use, but would still be useful for the entire life of the trains for when the wires come down.

Possible layout 5 car sets, diesel engine in one vehicle, 25kv transformer in another, and traction motors to drive every axle in the other three vehicles.

[JayMac]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

Stadler FLiRTs, now!

[Bmblbzzz]

Good point about baking in diesel traction – but in practice electrification is rather dependent on political will and that seems to be lacking all round.

[broadgage]

Good point about baking in diesel traction – but in practice electrification is rather dependent on political will and that seems to be lacking all round.

Some use of diesel power seems unavoidable given the snails pace of electrification. And even if better progress IS made, it will still take decades to electrify every branch on which the new units might run.
In order to reduce the size, weight, and cost of the diesel engines, it might be worth accepting reduced performance on diesel power, if compared to OHLE. Perhaps 75 mph on diesel and 100 mph on electric might be a good starting point.

[Electric train]

But what would these replacements be? New diesel units would presumably be a lot cleaner than the existing fleet, but would bake in diesel traction for decades. Something like a Stadler FLIRT, with a modular power pack, seems like a better bet. Do Alstom offer anything similar?

It should be and reality is posible to design and build rolling stock that could be converted from diesel to electric traction. 

The diesel power packs need to easily replaceable on the solebar with electric traction power pack of either or all 25kV, 750V DC^▸ (Direct Current), battery.  The mechanical final drive arrangements on the bogies replaceable with axel mounted polyphase traction motors, traction control is all computer based so reprograming should all that is needed.  Built with the 25kV pan well from the start.

The problem I would suggest is the train leasing companies or TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s but more specifically the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have not funded such a flexible design.  The DfT i.e. the Government have the "leave it to the market forces" approach