Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
End of through trains
Bristol to Waterloo?

 
Please sign our petition
(more information)
 
Campaign links here
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 01:15 05 Dec 2021
- Coronavirus: UK tightens travel rules amid Omicron spread
- Huge Calder Valley model railway hidden from girlfriend unveiled
- Omicron: What are the new Covid rules for travelling to the UK?
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 09/12/21 - Award Event - CRN
19/01/22 - MTUG - regular meeting
08/03/22 - WWRUG AGM - B-o-A
09/03/22 - MTUG - regular meeting
Random Image
Train RunningDelayed
05/12/21 07:53 Swansea to London Paddington
05/12/21 08:34 London Paddington to Swansea
05/12/21 08:34 Bristol Parkway to London Paddington
05/12/21 09:20 Swansea to London Paddington
05/12/21 09:34 London Paddington to Swansea
05/12/21 10:03 Bristol Parkway to London Paddington
05/12/21 10:18 Bristol Parkway to London Paddington
05/12/21 10:22 Swansea to London Paddington
05/12/21 10:42 London Paddington to Swansea
05/12/21 11:22 Swansea to London Paddington
05/12/21 11:42 London Paddington to Swansea
05/12/21 12:22 Swansea to London Paddington
05/12/21 12:42 London Paddington to Swansea
05/12/21 13:22 Swansea to London Paddington
05/12/21 13:42 London Paddington to Swansea
05/12/21 14:20 Swansea to London Paddington
05/12/21 14:42 London Paddington to Swansea
05/12/21 15:17 Swansea to London Paddington
05/12/21 15:42 London Paddington to Swansea
05/12/21 16:22 Swansea to London Paddington
05/12/21 16:42 London Paddington to Swansea
05/12/21 17:20 Swansea to London Paddington
05/12/21 17:42 London Paddington to Swansea
05/12/21 18:20 Swansea to London Paddington
05/12/21 19:20 Swansea to London Paddington
05/12/21 19:42 London Paddington to Swansea
05/12/21 20:19 Swansea to London Paddington
05/12/21 20:42 London Paddington to Swansea
05/12/21 21:42 London Paddington to Swansea
PollsThere are no open or recent polls
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
December 05, 2021, 01:23:58 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[274] Are the railways fit for their (future) purpose?
[89] Overhead Electrification Plans
[56] Masks To Become Compulsory On Public Transport Again
[53] Advent quiz- day 4 - "Pilning" - round 1
[40] Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion
[22] South Western Railways Waterloo - Bristol services axed
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Feasibility study: Bombardier to fit crosscountry class 220/221's with pantograph cars  (Read 17002 times)
bignosemac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 17845


Birthday Avatar: 48 143.


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2011, 04:07:38 pm »

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.  Tongue Wink Grin
Logged

http://www.templecombevillage.uk/station.html

There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist. - Sir Terry Pratchett
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4965


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2011, 05:06:15 pm »

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
Logged
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2011, 05:07:56 pm »

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

Nah - the plans were drawn using wax crayons. Roll Eyes
Logged
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2754



View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2011, 05:11:18 pm »

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 !
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4965


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2011, 05:30:33 pm »

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 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
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 8939


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2011, 05:44:38 pm »

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.
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
Ollie
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2273


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2011, 01:39:35 am »

And lets not forget that additional Win,

Able to keep running when the Wires are down!
Unless they are covering the track of course.
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4501



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2011, 12:43:25 pm »

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.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2011, 12:58:36 pm »

.
 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
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4965


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2011, 01:17:01 pm »

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 
Logged
inspector_blakey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3574



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2011, 03:37:56 pm »

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...
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2011, 04:33:20 pm »

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.

 
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: September 13, 2011, 04:35:34 pm »

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.
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4965


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: September 13, 2011, 04:51:40 pm »

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
Logged
woody
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 525


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2011, 10:00:55 am »

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
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 [2] 3 4
  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

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page