Low Cost Trains for Europe, brought to you by... China

[CSRZiyang]

Don't be misled. This is a conventional DMU

That there is the rub. I am personally of the opinion that we cannot afford to rest on our laurels regarding the environmental impact of rail - particularly on marginal routes such as those operated by Northern Rail. The fact is, in environmental terms, the railways have to move to a zero-emissions (or near as is possible) position within the next few decades - the Pacer and Sprinter replacement presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to move towards that goal. Conventional DMUs simply aren't good enough in the age of Climate Change awareness - we need a unit which helps reduce our dependancy on oil consumption (and resulting pollution), thereby also reducing operating costs. The up-front price is not critical - the cost of operating them from introduction to ~2040 is.

The only similarity between utopia and the UK is the U!

I absolutely share your point of view that we need to drive towards more environmentally friendly transport. However, until such time as the planet stops being controlled by the oil companies, and we get some engineers and scientists in positions of politcial power (there is currently only one in the top 24 politicians in the UK government, Margeret Beckett, and she presides over the foreign office!), it simply will not happen.

I used to agree that more lines should be electrified and that would give us more environmentally friendly trains. However, in a recently published report, commissioned by the ORR, comparing emissions from rail to emissions from road, it came to light the following: 1/ more CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere to generate power for electric traction than is emitted by all diesel traction; 2/ diesel powered passenger trains emit 41 grammes of CO2 per passenger km, compared with 56 grammes per passenger km for electric passenger trains 3/ the production of power for electric traction emits 1.1 kilotonnes of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) annually compared to 0.1 kilotonnes by diesel traction and 4/ the production of power for electric traction emits 5.0 kilotonnes of Sulphur Dioxide annually, compared to 1.0 kilotonnes by diesel traction.

There is no simple answer to the environment issue, but one fact is certain; if we wait around for a great technology to surface, all the Pacers will have been scrapped and all the lines closed, because of a shortage of traction.... the outcome of that, we'll all be driving our cars instead, emitting three times as much CO2 per passenger km as a conventional diesel multiple unit.

[CSRZiyang]

The use of steel bodies is also detrimental to the efficiency of any unit, aluminium would be preferential. These units have to be, if you will pardon the layman's term, "dirt cheap" to operate throughout their lifetime.

Regards,

Dan

Dan, I have been involved with projects where both steel and aluminium have been used. At the end of the day, the end weight of the train doesn't vary much and steel is much easier to manufacture with and repair. An example is the Turbostar, where from an aluminium shell, the end result is a vehicle that weighs over 45 tonnes. The calculated weight of the CSR unit will be just over 43 tonnes (tare) per vehicle.

[AlistairW]

Off topic for a second,

RE: Diesels cleaner than Electric...

Once again the power of negative thinking clearly struck the ORR, if, say electricity was produced by magic, say wind, sun or tidal power to name a few, it would be cleaner than diesel. I'm not saying electric trains are the answer to the world’s problems by no means, but, the rest of Europe seems to think electric is slightly better.


Back on topic,

David you appear to of put forward some good answers to our questions, but you can expect some of us to be cynical, especially when the train manufacturing industry within Europe (and once Britain) is already quite well established. Being a Brit, I'd like to see some British people employed to produce a British train but theres a slim chance of that happening. I heard there’s quite a large redundant skilled workforce in Longbridge...


Edit: Removing chunk about electricity been cleaner as its been said over and over...

[johncard]

With a change of gearbox, the fitting of a yaw damper, stiffening of the suspension and installation o air conditioning (all of which can be retro-fitted to a second hand unit or installed from new, it can become a 160 km / h (100 mph) cross country unit.

Please understand I am not an engineer, but would the units be built such that they can be retro-fitted with a power pack using alternative technologies? BTW, if the engines were built and fitted in Europe, that would save the environmental cost of exporting them to China to send them back again

John

[CSRZiyang]

With a change of gearbox, the fitting of a yaw damper, stiffening of the suspension and installation o air conditioning (all of which can be retro-fitted to a second hand unit or installed from new, it can become a 160 km / h (100 mph) cross country unit.

Please understand I am not an engineer, but would the units be built such that they can be retro-fitted with a power pack using alternative technologies? BTW, if the engines were built and fitted in Europe, that would save the environmental cost of exporting them to China to send them back again

John

John,

The engines will indeed be built AND fitted in Europe. Only the first two or three engines will be shipped to China, for type testing and then rotated around the finished units. After that, the vehicles will be shipped to the UK without their power units, which will be installed when they arrive at the home depot, by the British depot staff. The engine, transmission and ancillaries etc are mounted within a raft assembly, so that they can be changed en-bloc by two British people in less than one shift

[CSRZiyang]

Off topic for a second,

RE: Diesels cleaner than Electric...

Once again the power of negative thinking clearly struck the ORR, if, say electricity was produced by magic, say wind, sun or tidal power to name a few, it would be cleaner than diesel. I'm not saying electric trains are the answer to the world’s problems by no means, but, the rest of Europe seems to think electric is slightly better.


Back on topic,

David you appear to of put forward some good answers to our questions, but you can expect some of us to be cynical, especially when the train manufacturing industry within Europe (and once Britain) is already quite well established. Being a Brit, I'd like to see some British people employed to produce a British train but theres a slim chance of that happening. I heard there’s quite a large redundant skilled workforce in Longbridge...


Edit: Removing chunk about electricity been cleaner as its been said over and over...

Alistair,

There's another redundant skilled workforce in Washwood Heath, and another in Wakefield, and there was once one in York.... It wasn't Chinese competition that killed their jobs, but a combination of uncertainty in the UK rolling stock market and the companies being taken over by multinationals, which destroyed their export opportunities (their parent companies already having factories in virtually every export market country).

[AlistairW]

I accept that, and I am aware its not Chinas fault for wanting to be competitive, heck with a huge workforce like that I'd want to be exporting everything everywhere.

I think its more of a British political attitude that its okay to sell everything we own off, whilst other countries have laws forbidding it. With review of your last reply to John I retract part of my statement about British job losses.

[mattvince]

I used to agree that more lines should be electrified and that would give us more environmentally friendly trains. However, in a recently published report, commissioned by the ORR, comparing emissions from rail to emissions from road, it came to light the following: 1/ more CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere to generate power for electric traction than is emitted by all diesel traction; 2/ diesel powered passenger trains emit 41 grammes of CO2 per passenger km, compared with 56 grammes per passenger km for electric passenger trains 3/ the production of power for electric traction emits 1.1 kilotonnes of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) annually compared to 0.1 kilotonnes by diesel traction and 4/ the production of power for electric traction emits 5.0 kilotonnes of Sulphur Dioxide annually, compared to 1.0 kilotonnes by diesel traction.

"Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"

The problem is partly down to the UK generating industry, which could do much better. As AlistairW has said, the rail industry can always move to renewables - in fact I'd be minded to suggest that NR, because of the hikes in the MLUI, makes contributions towards renewable generation suppliers to avoid being 'done over' by British Energy. Equally there is the nuclear argument.

There is no simple answer to the environment issue, but one fact is certain; if we wait around for a great technology to surface, all the Pacers will have been scrapped and all the lines closed, because of a shortage of traction.... the outcome of that, we'll all be driving our cars instead, emitting three times as much CO2 per passenger km as a conventional diesel multiple unit.

I appreciate that you have a product to sell, but I'm not sure how true that statement is. Certainly as regards our 'Community Railways' there is the prospect for cascading 15x units - in fact the most 'under threat' already use 15x units (principally Class 153), which could well last another ten years. AIUI, Pacers are more common on some of the suburban routes, where there is a demand for a suburban DMU, equally there is quite possibly a marginal business case for electrification. Manchester, for example, could transfer many Pacer-worked routes to a 'Regional Metrolink' operation (along the lines of Karlsruhe). Tyneside could see an expansion of the T&W Metro following on from Sunderland Direct. Some minor electrification schemes would also free up 15x units - such as the Cannock Chase line. As arabiandisco has mentioned often enough, 16x units could be used to cascade 15x units to the North, by taking over GW ('Wessex') local services after electrification of the GWML suburbans - a project which has a good chance of a good business case. All these could buy perhaps ten to fifteen years or more in which to develop something truely new, to change the fortunes of local lines in the same way as the early BR DMUs, and their Pacer replacements, have done.

There is new technology - ironically it is in use in buses at present. Adapting the fuel-cell technology used on the RV1 'Citaros' to rail use is worth considering, at least as a demonstrator.

[AlistairW]

Here here to the whole of Matt's post, too much thinking inside the box is bad, the railways need someone to come along with a little initiative.

As arabiandisco has mentioned often enough, 16x units could be used to cascade 15x units to the North, by taking over GW ('Wessex') local services after electrification of the GWML suburbans - a project which has a good chance of a good business case.

Just a question as opposed to a statement - Is it possible for the 16X classes to run on all lines, I heard they are slightly wider than most other trains.

[arabiandisco]

I don't remember suggesting that 165/6 units could shift to the north (though they could concieveably go out west to replace FGW's 150s etc) as I think they are a bit bigger and hence restricted to ex GW/GC routes. Though having said that, the GW has one of the smaller loading gauges out there now, due to it being non-electrified.

Regarding the emissions due to traction electricity, NR buys its power from the Nuclear people (British Energy?), so technically electric trains in the UK are zero carbon. Though that is quite clearly an accounting trick!

[AlistairW]

I don't remember suggesting that 165/6 units could shift to the north (though they could concieveably go out west to replace FGW's 150s etc) as I think they are a bit bigger and hence restricted to ex GW/GC routes. Though having said that, the GW has one of the smaller loading gauges out there now, due to it being non-electrified.

Thats what Matt said you said.

Its a shame they are restricted to that region they make quite nice Units in my opinion, not so keen on the 3 + 2 seating though, even if they are slightly wider.

[Samd22]

Manchester, for example, could transfer many Pacer-worked routes to a 'Regional Metrolink' operation (along the lines of Karlsruhe).

Extending the Manchester metrolink to places like Leigh and Bolton?

Tyneside could see an expansion of the T&W Metro following on from Sunderland Direct.

Extending the wires along the Durham coast line to Teeside?

Some minor electrification schemes would also free up 15x units - such as the Cannock Chase line. As arabiandisco has mentioned often enough, 16x units could be used to cascade 15x units to the North, by taking over GW ('Wessex') local services after electrification of the GWML suburbans - a project which has a good chance of a good business case.

By GWML suburbans do you mean the branches between London and Reading?

[mattvince]

I don't remember suggesting that 165/6 units could shift to the north (though they could concieveably go out west to replace FGW's 150s etc) as I think they are a bit bigger and hence restricted to ex GW/GC routes. Though having said that, the GW has one of the smaller loading gauges out there now, due to it being non-electrified.

Apologies - I was inferring that you advocated the 16Xs to go west, such that 15Xs can go north, the 16Xs being kicked off their current patch by electrification of the GWML Subs. The gauge issue is not so much of height but of width - I believe the Turbos are just that bit longer and bit wider than other units, so could clout some platform edges.

Sam - London to Oxford/Westbury plus branches.

[arabiandisco]

With current service patterns, I can't see much reason to go beyond Bedwyn. That's not to say that providing a regular electric service to Pewsey & Westbury wouldn't result in increased demand... To my mind, you'd have to do pretty much everything that is currently operated by 16x units, to eliminate the diesel fleet (stopping services north of oxford would present a bit of an issue, the "service" (if you can call it that) to Bicester should be extended to Bedford, but the Worcester/ Banbury line is another matter. But then I'm sure it could be worked out!

To be honest, electrification of the GWML would make sense to me when the 16x units are up for renewel. They're about 15 years old now, so in about 10 years time. I'd love it to happen sooner, but I can't see it.

[Ghostcav]

Heres a kind of list of things the new units probably wont have but is actually important for the people who drive them,not the ones who just admire them from the outside.

1: Proper two lever driving controls (I have two hands for this purpose,single power/brake controllers are awkward to control smoothly especially when they put them on the left even though more people are right handed.)

2:Couplings that are compatible with other units running around.

3:Side windows for the driver,the train may look prettier without them but driving with only the front view leads to a horrible tunnel vison type effect & makes judging speeds/marker boards at platforms hard/impossible.Also make sure they have openings for the driver.

4:As much space as possible between driver & passenger vestibule so when there are chavs standing around listening to music on there phones it doesnt deafen the driver.

5:Forget about saving weight,light trains skid at the mere hint of light rain/leaves.Also dont believe that Wheel slip/slide protection will overcome this fact,it doesnt.

6:Dont make the cab of the train a crumple zone like the 175,it scares us drivers