16 May 2013
National Audit Office expresses its "doubts" about HS2
The National Audit Office has issued this report. "Doubts" is code for total demolition of the economic case for the project.
5 May 2013
New class 68 fleet under construction
The Railway Gazette reports that The first of 15 Vossloh UKLight diesel-electric locomotives for freight and charter train operator Direct Rail Services is now under construction at the Vossloh España plant near Valencia in Spain. DRS expects the first locomotive to be sent to the Velim test circuit in the Czech Republic for trial running in September, and the second to arrive at DRS’s Crewe depot by the end of October to start the UK approvals process.
Designated Class 68, the UKLight is based on the EuroLight freight and passenger locomotive family. Intended for both freight and passenger operation, the 21·5 tonne axleload Bo-Bo will have a 2 800 kW Caterpillar C175 engine and AC traction equipment supplied by ABB. Differences from the EuroLight design include a smaller-profile to suit Britain's more restricted loading gauge, a higher top speed of 160 km/h rather than the 140 km/h and an increase in fuel tank capacity from 4 000 litres to 5 000 litres.
The Class 68’s mixed-traffic capability means that it is likely to undertake a wide variety of duties for the operator. DRS says it would be capable of ‘at least matching’ the performance of its EMD Class 66 fleet. DRS also remains hopeful of expanding its passenger operation, which is currently focused on the charter train market. It is in negotiations with the Department for Transport and franchised passenger operator Northern over the potential launch of scheduled passenger trains along the Cumbrian Coast line in northwest England.
The styling is to say the least odd, with a reduced width to the front of the cab that apparently serves no purpose whatsoever - on the contrary, it positively prevents the driver from looking out of the window to obtain a view back along the length of the train.
At 3700 hp, the locomotive is significantly more powerful than the 3300 hp Deltic and roughly equivalent to what the 8P Duke of Gloucester would be if the remaining teething troubles with the locomotive, completed in 1954, were finally resolved. Unfortunately, the latter machine is currently out of service awaiting overhaul. Given that the production cost of a batch of steam locomotives is about one-third or less of that of the equivalent diesel, and the work done by Roger Waller in demonstrating how steam can be integrated with surprising ease into the contemporary railway environment, it is infuriating to see a potentially promising technology is still being sidelined due to perceptions that it is "old fashioned".
11 Apr 2013
A Thatcher legacy
The Docklands Light Railway is a curious legacy of the Thatcher period, when London Docklands was designated as an Enterprise Zone. These Zones were a brainchild of planning minister Michael Heseltine and offered planning and tax concessions.
The DLR opened as a Y-shaped route from Tower Hill to Island Gardens, at the north end of Greenwich foot tunnel, and to Stratford, mostly on long-closed railway alignments. Extensions were built first to the Bank, giving it an interchange to the London underground system, and then to Lewisham on the south side of the river, to Beckton to the east and to Woolwich, again on the south side of the Thames. The Lewisham extension was expensive for what it was, involving a long viaduct, diversion of the river Ravensbourne, and burrowing under the railway embankments at Lewisham, to a terminus on the wrong side of a busy roundabout separating it from the main town centre.
Standard overhead electrification was not used, for aesthetic reasons, and an unusual system of bottom-contact third rail electrification was used instead. The trains were fairly conventional lightweight tramway-type vehicles. Driving was automatic ie from the control centre, and the member of staff acted as a general order-keeper and driver in emergency.
The system quickly proved inadequate. The fleet has been replaced three times. Trains have had to be lengthened and stations rebuilt to accommodate them. The system was never going to have the capacity to serve the commercial development at Canary Wharf, and eventually, with a contribution from developers Reichmann, the Jubilee Line Extension was constructed from Bond Street to Stratford, giving through services to Stanmore in north London. One that was open, the development of Canary Wharf could go ahead.
The system gives the impression of being clean and well run and obviously serves a useful function. Whether it is the system that would have been built had it been planned from the start is another question. Due to the larger size of the trains, the tunneling - and there has been quite a mileage built over the years - was considerably more expensive than if some of the line had been built as a tube. Other parts of the route would, more logically, have been developed as conventional railways run with conventional stock, and eventually integrated into London Overground. Other parts again - perhaps the Lewisham route - would probably have been more useful if they had been constructed as conventional on-street tramway, which could then have gone on to Catford and Bromley and perhaps eventually have joined up with Croydon Tramlink. The Jubilee Line Extension would probably have taken a different form if the DLR had opened as a direct tube line from the Bank to Canary Wharf and Stratford. Such a route would also have been more easily extended westwards from Bank, an enhancement which remains on the list of aspirations for the DLR.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but already in the early 1980s planning was out of favour in the political right, especially longer-term planning. There was a desire to spend as little as possible at the start. The system, whilst quite good in its own right, is almost certainly not what would have been built if it had been planned from the outset, nor can it have been particularly good value for the money it has cost.
The DLR opened as a Y-shaped route from Tower Hill to Island Gardens, at the north end of Greenwich foot tunnel, and to Stratford, mostly on long-closed railway alignments. Extensions were built first to the Bank, giving it an interchange to the London underground system, and then to Lewisham on the south side of the river, to Beckton to the east and to Woolwich, again on the south side of the Thames. The Lewisham extension was expensive for what it was, involving a long viaduct, diversion of the river Ravensbourne, and burrowing under the railway embankments at Lewisham, to a terminus on the wrong side of a busy roundabout separating it from the main town centre.
Standard overhead electrification was not used, for aesthetic reasons, and an unusual system of bottom-contact third rail electrification was used instead. The trains were fairly conventional lightweight tramway-type vehicles. Driving was automatic ie from the control centre, and the member of staff acted as a general order-keeper and driver in emergency.
The system quickly proved inadequate. The fleet has been replaced three times. Trains have had to be lengthened and stations rebuilt to accommodate them. The system was never going to have the capacity to serve the commercial development at Canary Wharf, and eventually, with a contribution from developers Reichmann, the Jubilee Line Extension was constructed from Bond Street to Stratford, giving through services to Stanmore in north London. One that was open, the development of Canary Wharf could go ahead.
The system gives the impression of being clean and well run and obviously serves a useful function. Whether it is the system that would have been built had it been planned from the start is another question. Due to the larger size of the trains, the tunneling - and there has been quite a mileage built over the years - was considerably more expensive than if some of the line had been built as a tube. Other parts of the route would, more logically, have been developed as conventional railways run with conventional stock, and eventually integrated into London Overground. Other parts again - perhaps the Lewisham route - would probably have been more useful if they had been constructed as conventional on-street tramway, which could then have gone on to Catford and Bromley and perhaps eventually have joined up with Croydon Tramlink. The Jubilee Line Extension would probably have taken a different form if the DLR had opened as a direct tube line from the Bank to Canary Wharf and Stratford. Such a route would also have been more easily extended westwards from Bank, an enhancement which remains on the list of aspirations for the DLR.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but already in the early 1980s planning was out of favour in the political right, especially longer-term planning. There was a desire to spend as little as possible at the start. The system, whilst quite good in its own right, is almost certainly not what would have been built if it had been planned from the outset, nor can it have been particularly good value for the money it has cost.
8 Apr 2013
Were the standards a waste of money?
An article in this month's Steam Railway discusses the standard fleet of British Railways steam locomotives built to new designs between 1951 and 1960. There were 999 of them, and all were out of service by 1968, so they were not good value for money. Were British Railways' engineers to blame?
The story is long forgotten, but, as the article reminds us, the British Transport Commission had a sudden change of plan in the mid-1950s and diesel locomotive types which were on order in small numbers for comparative trials were ordered in large numbers before the test locomotives had even been delivered. This change of plan was imposed on the horrified engineers. Whole fleets of the diesel locomotives were effectively prototypes and the engineers were saddled with the task of resolving the teething troubles. In the case of some of the classes, the teething troubles were never resolved and the expensive hardware - typically costing five times as much as the equivalent steam locomotives - went to the scrapyard even faster than the "Standards".
Thus, all the planning that had been done to supersede steam traction in an orderly way was set aside and dieselisation was conducted in a rush. In France and West Germany, steam remained in use for another ten years or so.
The article suggests that had economic considerations applied, the locomotives would have continued in service until the early 1990s, as intended. What the article does not mention in the article is that, as information has come to light both through research, release of documents and experience of the locomotives in preservation, they were exceptionally well-designed both overall and in detail, being almost free of inherent flaws. The 8P Duke of Gloucester and the 9F 2-10-0 were an outstandingly good designs. They would have had particularly long service lives.
They would then have retro-fitted with the technical improvements developed by Porta, Wardale and Waller, that took place from the mid-1970. In that case they would probably still be in service on secondary routes currently operated by Sprinters and Pacers, as well as on infrastructure trains where long periods are spent doing nothing at all. In fact, it is not impossible that additional locomotives would have been built to replace the original standards as they wore out.
That said, 12 different types was undoubtedly too many. Was there really a need for the 8P Duke, and the Britannia, and the Clan class and the class 5? Or for the class 3 tender and tank engines in-between the class 4 4-6-0 and 2-6-0 types, and 2-6-4 tank, and the class 2 2-6-0 tender locomotive and the 2-6-2 tank.
It is good to see this deplorable series of events brought to attention. It is an excellent illustration of the expensive damage that can be done through political interference.
The story is long forgotten, but, as the article reminds us, the British Transport Commission had a sudden change of plan in the mid-1950s and diesel locomotive types which were on order in small numbers for comparative trials were ordered in large numbers before the test locomotives had even been delivered. This change of plan was imposed on the horrified engineers. Whole fleets of the diesel locomotives were effectively prototypes and the engineers were saddled with the task of resolving the teething troubles. In the case of some of the classes, the teething troubles were never resolved and the expensive hardware - typically costing five times as much as the equivalent steam locomotives - went to the scrapyard even faster than the "Standards".
Thus, all the planning that had been done to supersede steam traction in an orderly way was set aside and dieselisation was conducted in a rush. In France and West Germany, steam remained in use for another ten years or so.
The article suggests that had economic considerations applied, the locomotives would have continued in service until the early 1990s, as intended. What the article does not mention in the article is that, as information has come to light both through research, release of documents and experience of the locomotives in preservation, they were exceptionally well-designed both overall and in detail, being almost free of inherent flaws. The 8P Duke of Gloucester and the 9F 2-10-0 were an outstandingly good designs. They would have had particularly long service lives.
They would then have retro-fitted with the technical improvements developed by Porta, Wardale and Waller, that took place from the mid-1970. In that case they would probably still be in service on secondary routes currently operated by Sprinters and Pacers, as well as on infrastructure trains where long periods are spent doing nothing at all. In fact, it is not impossible that additional locomotives would have been built to replace the original standards as they wore out.
That said, 12 different types was undoubtedly too many. Was there really a need for the 8P Duke, and the Britannia, and the Clan class and the class 5? Or for the class 3 tender and tank engines in-between the class 4 4-6-0 and 2-6-0 types, and 2-6-4 tank, and the class 2 2-6-0 tender locomotive and the 2-6-2 tank.
It is good to see this deplorable series of events brought to attention. It is an excellent illustration of the expensive damage that can be done through political interference.
6 Apr 2013
How the real case against HS2 has been buried
The economic case against HS2 has scarcely featured in public debate, which has mostly focussed on the harm it will do to well-heeled residents in Chiltern villages. One explanation is now surfacing. A lobbying
firm employed by the government to promote the case for the High Speed 2
railway line is at the centre of a row after its founder, a
Tory-supporting peer, was accused of painting opponents of the scheme as
posh nimbys worried about their hunting rights.
Read more in this Guardian article here.
Read more in this Guardian article here.
28 Mar 2013
14 Mar 2013
Do 26 metre vehicles give higher seating capacities?
I have tried without success to convince people that the proposed IEP length of 26 metres is too long for vehicles on the UK system.
One of the arguments being put forward for the extra length is that the seating capacity of a train is higher if the vehicles are longer. I would have expected this but when the calculations are done I am left wondering.
So what is the difference in the number of seats between 12 x 22 metre vehicles and 10 x IEP vehicles, of almost identical length? To make a fair comparison you have to assume equal seating density. Because the IEP has its luggage space outside what can be termed the "furnishable area", when it can actually be between seat backs within the furnishable area, this comparison is not so easy to make. However, furnishable area is a fair proxy.
The furnishable area in a 22 metre vehicle can be taken as 17.1 metres, the rest of the space being occupied by a toilet, luggage shelves, vestibules and a total of 1 M crumple zone. This gives a the total in 12 vehicles is 205 metres.
What about the IEP? IEP-TECH-REQ-35-Issue 05 (Technical specification for IEP published by DfT) states: "As a minimum the Furnishable Space length shall be 144m for a nominally 208m long IEP Unit."
That is 8 cars, which suggests the average furnishable space in an IEP vehicle is 18 metres. But there are two driving ends in the 8 car set, and that suggests that an intermediate vehicle will have 20 metres of furnishable space, perhaps 21.5 metres at the most. Which adds up to 200 to 215 metres in 10 vehicles. In other words there is no significant difference. That surprises me.
My own preference would have been either articulation or to have the longest vehicle that was possible with an external width of 2.80 metres with a go-almost-anywhere capability. Allowing 1.90 metres per bay, that gives a 9 bay vehicle (17.1 metres) with a further 1.2 metres for a toilet ie a total of 18.3 metres. A wheelchair access toilet can be provided in a vehicle with 8 1/2 seating bays. You then have 2 x 1.2 metres for the vestibules and a further 2 x 0.5 metres for crumple zones.
26 metres would be nice to have but it would need a new railway to fit them in without undue compromise.
One of the arguments being put forward for the extra length is that the seating capacity of a train is higher if the vehicles are longer. I would have expected this but when the calculations are done I am left wondering.
So what is the difference in the number of seats between 12 x 22 metre vehicles and 10 x IEP vehicles, of almost identical length? To make a fair comparison you have to assume equal seating density. Because the IEP has its luggage space outside what can be termed the "furnishable area", when it can actually be between seat backs within the furnishable area, this comparison is not so easy to make. However, furnishable area is a fair proxy.
The furnishable area in a 22 metre vehicle can be taken as 17.1 metres, the rest of the space being occupied by a toilet, luggage shelves, vestibules and a total of 1 M crumple zone. This gives a the total in 12 vehicles is 205 metres.
What about the IEP? IEP-TECH-REQ-35-Issue 05 (Technical specification for IEP published by DfT) states: "As a minimum the Furnishable Space length shall be 144m for a nominally 208m long IEP Unit."
That is 8 cars, which suggests the average furnishable space in an IEP vehicle is 18 metres. But there are two driving ends in the 8 car set, and that suggests that an intermediate vehicle will have 20 metres of furnishable space, perhaps 21.5 metres at the most. Which adds up to 200 to 215 metres in 10 vehicles. In other words there is no significant difference. That surprises me.
My own preference would have been either articulation or to have the longest vehicle that was possible with an external width of 2.80 metres with a go-almost-anywhere capability. Allowing 1.90 metres per bay, that gives a 9 bay vehicle (17.1 metres) with a further 1.2 metres for a toilet ie a total of 18.3 metres. A wheelchair access toilet can be provided in a vehicle with 8 1/2 seating bays. You then have 2 x 1.2 metres for the vestibules and a further 2 x 0.5 metres for crumple zones.
26 metres would be nice to have but it would need a new railway to fit them in without undue compromise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)