Atomic Systems

China wants to supply the UK with cheap diesel units to replace our beloved (sic) Pacers and Sprinters. As nice and as fancy as it all sounds, has anyone noticed that everything exported from China that’s cheap is rubbish? AND the fact that they’re cheap suggests in 10 years down the line we’ll be left with a newer version of Pacer just with more axels?

Maybe I’m being cynical but I think it’s a bad idea from the offset…

If it's short sighted it'll happen.

If the trains are actually really rather good (and who knows, they might be; China seems to have managed a few things to do with trains recently that are more impressive than anything that's happened here) then I suspect we won't see them.

If they can't cascade the pacers, maybe they could use them as FMUs? Rip out the seats, widen the doorways...... just so long as the cargo isn't particularly fragile.........

Or export them. Whatever.

It's a very risky strategy:
1. CSR Ziyang have no experience with building DMUs, and no experience of building for the UK or European environment.
2. The proposed DMUs will be 23m long, which will either mean they are barred from many Pacer-worked services, or those presently enduring a twenty-year-old Pacer will end up with Sprinters of a similar age and condition. I doubt Northern would be willing to stump up the cash for a gauge-enhancement program to allow C3-profile stock on those presently C1-gauge routes.
3. They are DMUs: MTU engine with a Voith final drive. Whilst that's all proven technology, in the age of Climate Change and rising diesel costs, being tied to a diesel-hydraulic drive increases cost and prevents evolution.
4. Cost vs Longevity: the cheaper they are built, the shorter the expected life. At £1m/vehicle, UK-built Turbostars are not cheap, but it's safe to say they will probably last 25-30 years.
5. Whatever replaces the Pacers will also have to replace the Sprinters - so we are talking a lot of vehicles. Whilst I do not doubt the Chinese ability to mass-produce items, such a large order going to a non-EU country is bound to raise eyebrows, both in Westminster and in Brussels, and possibly elsewhere.

The Pacer-Sprinter replacement has to be a well-designed unit, one which must embody the lessons of the Pacers and Sprinters. Firstly, buying the cheapest does not give the best - Pacers are an object lesson. Also buying cheap merely ends up with higher maintenance costs. Then there is the question of lifetime - such a new unit could easily be running in 2040 - will it still be sufficiently suitable? Therefore the units have to be capable of evolving - as I alluded to above, using diesel-hydraulic drive is short-sighted. Electric transmission allows for so much more flexibility - either a plain DEMU, or a Diesel-Electric-Hybrid, Electro-Diesel, Battery Electric, pure EMU, Fuel Cell, etc, etc. That kind of flexibility meets the operator specific requirements, yet maximises standardisation. It also allows for the potential for savings - in the long run, diesel is unlikely to get cheaper, quite the opposite. It's a flexibility which has to extend to other facets of any design.

What's wrong with diesel-hydraulics? If we have enough of them, the high maintainance costs will come right down. Technologically, hydraulic transmission is certainly not inferior to electric performance-wise. However, can we have no more DMMUs please - ever!

Well, in my opinion we should have started electrifying more secondary lines long ago, and be using electric traction like the rest of Europe.

Nick

Don't worry, it's just for Matt Vince if it's not electro diesel etc, it's sent from the devil!

Electric transmission does allow greater possibilities for later evolution - for example (and I know this is an ancient thing) had the Deltics had hydraulic transmission, the modifications for ETH would have been much greater, and in I wouldn't be surprised if the Western's Hydraulics were abandoned as a concept partly because of that. You could concievably build a pantograph trailer for a voyager and shut down the diesel engines when running under wires - not something you could do if they had hydraulic transmission.

In 20 years time, diesel is likely to be very expensive. That should at least be considered when procuring new trains.

As for the risk of using the chinese manufacturer, the old risk- reward thing applies: the greater the risk, the greater the potential rewards. Politically I can't see a large order for new trains going to China when we can build them in Europe, but you never know.

What is to stop the Diesel Engines being replaced with Electric Hydraulic pumps?

on the face of it, not a lot. But the hydraulic system would be optimised for the diesel engine's operating characteristics, which don't really bear much relation to that of an electric motor. I'm sure such a motor could be built, but at what expense? It would add weight to the train, and additional maintainance costs as you'd still have to fit the entire electric traction package, and then have another layer of final drive.

Electric transmission is simpler in a way, as you have to feed it amps, and they could come from a local diesel engine (or other source, such as fuel cells), or an external source.

I have registered to this forum to respond to some of the comments made regarding the proposed Pacer replacement product, offered by CSR Ziyang Locomotive Co, via its UK arm, CSRE Limited.

The Chinese have not entered into this venture lightly, and over the past three years, have engaged some of the best UK consultants to advise it on specification, technical matters and acceptance issues. Also, several of the Ziyang team have worked extensively on European projects, including the Talbot (now Bombardier) Talent and various Siemens products.

Don't be misled. This is a conventional DMU, that will benefit from low manufacturing costs in China, mainly in the areas of metalwork, interior trim and assembly. With European power, transmission and braking systems, this will be a European DMU in an oriental robe.

Regarding route availability, the specification that Ziyang responded to asked for a DMU which could access all Northern routes, as a Class 156 (23 metres!) can.

I would welcome any dialogue with forum members relating to the specification of the proposed unit.

You wouldn't by chance be the author of the article about these units that appeared in the recent edition of Modern Railways?

Regards,

Dan

Without seeming too rude in any shape or form but I work for a large manufacturer of diesel engines who build engines worldwide, including China, and the engines built there always have considerably lower reliability than the ones built elsewhere. Will the TOC's just end up paying more through maintenance and trains delays in the long run?

I personally believe the venture is being driven by Chinese officials with a few European PR people. Maybe I’m wrong but it’s just my opinion. The article in Modern Railways was very biased (as you’d expect) and the DMU comes across as far to good to be true. I’m in favour of a replacement but I’m British and believe if all of our trains orders should be to companies in the UK or at least Europe. That’s why we’re part of the EU isn’t it?

The modern railways article was written by an employee of CSR Ziyang, IIRC.

Is is Chinese build quality that much worse than British/ European? In fact, there's very little european built stuff that fills me with with confidence regarding it's build quality. I'd never buy a French car, for example, as I want to actually get to my destination (my Dad's Peugeot has broken down again today). Or is that more symptomatic of the throwaway culture we seem to be developing?

Anyhow, just give the things electric transmission. And pantographs so they can run on electric power where wires exist...

CSRZiyang, what is the unit shown in your avatar? Is it a computer generated image of a train you're developing? A High Speed Train perhaps?

I work for a large manufacturer of diesel engines who build engines worldwide, including China, and the engines built there always have considerably lower reliability than the ones built elsewhere. Will the TOC's just end up paying more through maintenance and trains delays in the long run?

With European power, transmission and braking systems, this will be a European DMU in an oriental robe.

Doesn't this clarify the situation, or are they European designs manufactured in China? I regret that I haven't read this article, so I may not know the full story, but it sounds good to me.

John