What would today's Standard Classes be?

[jjb1970]

This thread seems to assume there is something wrong with our trains. I don't like the class 66, but it appears to pull freight trains reliably. Some of our passenger trains may not be blessed with the best interiors but in electrical and mechanical terms most of them seem to work well enough. Some of the trains on the network are superb. Despite a lot of criticism the ROSCOs have done OK in providing trains. On emissions that's a prime mover issue, just need a compliant engine.

[Guest theonlydt]

This thread seems to assume there is something wrong with our trains. I don't like the class 66, but it appears to pull freight trains reliably. Some of our passenger trains may not be blessed with the best interiors but in electrical and mechanical terms most of them seem to work well enough. Some of the trains on the network are superb. Despite a lot of criticism the ROSCOs have done OK in providing trains. On emissions that's a prime mover issue, just need a compliant engine.

This thread doesn't assume there's anything wrong. 

 

But apparently the problem is me, not the fact that others on this thread have been aggressive, unwilling to engage in light-hearted theoretical discussions on how to create new standard locomotives (which has happened twice previously in the last 70 years).

So I'm out. I'm frankly disappointed at that responses on this thread that have been extremely critical of me. I don't want to be on a forum such as this. 

Scrap all existing diesel locomotives and dmus for replacement with GM imports that run properly, but specify decent cabs.  2 types of locomotive and 2 types of dmu will be required.  The locos both Co-Cos and standardised for parts, but with a high and low power option and gearing options for 75mph or 60mph freight.  Dmus similarly standardised, but with different door/seating arrangements for local/commuter 90mph geared and long distance 125mp work.

 

This general plan to be repeated for overhead electric traction, again with standardised bodyshells/cabs, but with 110mph local and 160mph capable main line passenger stock.  3rd rail to be abandoned asap and replaced with 25kv overhead.  Some London commuter routes to have loading guage restricions eased with a view to double deck commuter trains; massive investment required for this but only solution to overcrowding on the ex 3rd rail network.  

 

First/Executive/Premium and whatever classes to be abolished.  All stock running at 125mph to have 2x1 seating and legroom consistent with current first class standards and wide aisles for catering to all seats; mains power and usb outlets at all seating bays, bays to align with windows, and wi-fi provided aboard all passenger trains.  90mph stock to have plug doors and full air conditioning, 2x2 seating with legroom consistent with current main line stock.  All vehicles on all trains to have toilets.  

 

New class of 3,000 hp electro-diesel bi-mode Bo-Bo with standard cab, and all motive power to be capable of running in mulitple via automatic couplers.  This to be used as assistance on banks, thunderbird work, heritage stock including head power on steam powered excursions. 

 

Standard cab with standardised controls on all trains and locomotives, designed for driver comfort and ease of operation.  Cab to be integral part of loco or coach body, with accident crumple zone and roll cage type protection for driver.  Standard formation of multiple unit train to be 4 vehicles for 90mph local, 8 for 125mph and +.

 

Standard automatic coupling on all vehicles to include braking and control connections, capable of uncoupling or coupling while trains are in motion under supervision of driver.

 

Cab signalling only throughout.

 

Liveries and branding to be universally applied across the system.  TFL stock to be 75mph capable and capable of working in multiple with BR; classic London Transport red livery to be restored.  Suggest Maunsell early Southern Railway type green for BR locos and multiple units, with Helvetica font branding and information.  Diesel stock to carry yellow line at cantrail and electric to carry red; any bi-mode to carry both.

 

Standard loco and stock profile to aid cleaning.

 

Changes to be fully implemented by 2030.

 

That'll do to be going on with!

This is an excellent and thought response. Thank you.

[jjb1970]

But why do we need new standard classes? Where it makes sense de-facto standard designs tend to appear anyway. Standard designs are not necessarily the best solution, especially since production technology is no based on common platforms which can be optimised for bespoke customer requirements.

[jim.snowdon]

What we do need is -

- common drawgear standards so that at least one train can rescue another, with a common air brake interface.

- acceptance of manufacturer's standard designs and the avoidance of bespoke design.

- go-anywhere gauging capability.

- single standard door threshold height.

 

Jim

[Nearholmer]

Given the rather unlikely scenario set (dire trading relationships AND surplus government cash to spend on railways????), and the somewhat depleted state of our domestic locomotive-building capability, I suggest:

 

Standardise on a 100hp unit made by Alan Keef, who can and do build a good little loco, and use giant multi-lashups to haul the heavier trains. Engines could come from automotive factories.

 

More seriously, who makes in the UK the size of diesel-engine that might be needed for mainline locos? LIster-Petter, and Perkins? Anyone else?

 

Maybe something powered by the RR gas turbines that the imagined trade-wars make un-exportable?

Edited March 6, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Trains4U]

I suspect if the original post had suggested starting with a clean slate, it would have gone down much better.

 

However, starting with a deeply political scenario is bound to cause irritation - as (Given the way the vote was split) the "Scenario" may be viewed as needling by as many as half the people on the forum - thereby eliciting negative responses.

 

As per the forum rules, its best to keep Politics out of it, however theoretical it may be.

[frobisher]

The actual solution to the "scenario" is massive scale electrification; If there's money to replace the loco fleet down the back of the mythical sofa, then there's money to electrify everything, everywhere. It knocks the emissions issue straight on the head, you then "only" need a few bi-mode thunderbirds and/or "last mile" locos in addition to a standardised electric loco fleet, and EMU manufacturer of choice for passenger duties.

[phil-b259]

Out of interest why are we excluding the Isle of Wight? And surely London Underground should be nationalised too to avoid a repeat of the whole 'Fares fair' Central line to Ongar idiocy and remove the reason for the Croxley link to be put on hold?

 

Please tell me what private sector organisation runs Transport for London.

 

Nationalisation is not the same thing as running an organisation from Westminster / the DfT / the Home Office etc.

 

London Underground (as with the DLR rolling stock + infrastructure, various bits of bus infrastructure, the core Crossrail infrastructure + trains, the core ELL infrastructure , Overground Electrostars) IS A NATIONSALISED ORGAINSATION. It is run by Transport for London, part of the Grater London Authority whose ,members (and the Mayor) are elected by the citizens of London every 4 years.

 

What is true is that, as with Transport Scotland (which is a branch of the Scottish Government), the Westminster Government and the Department for Transport regard transport provision in areas with a devolved administration as nothing to do with them. Accordingly all decisions relating to London Underground are taken by TfL.

[Allegheny1600]

I suspect if the original post had suggested starting with a clean slate, it would have gone down much better.

In an attempt to steer this thread towards a sensible discussion(!)

I would set the timeline to say, 2033 (15 years hence) and ignore or rather not to try and predict the possible political and economic background.

 

Unless full-scale electrification has happened, then we will need some diesel locos.

 

Shunter: possible C coupled (0-6-0?) machine, similar to the current Prima H3, Vossloh G6 of a hybrid diesel/battery design of around 600Hp 50Mph.

 

New type 2/3: Bo-Bo centre cab of around 1500Hp, 75Mph. Probably also a hybrid diesel/battery design but bigger than the shunter.

 

New type 4: Bo-Bo double cab of around 2500Hp, 100+Mph. Smaller version of the class 68?

 

New type 6: Co-Co double cab of 4000+Hp, 120+Mph, possibly with two stage gearing (75/125Mph). Advancement of the class 68?

 

What about existing locos?

Class 08: All withdrawn, simply worn out/too old.

Class 20: ditto.

Class 37: ditto.

Class 47: ditto.

Class 5X: ditto.

Class 60: ditto.

Class 66: Very few left in service, too cheaply built, unpopular, become unreliable, old technology.

Class 67: ditto.

Class 68: Now requiring mid-life rebuilding.

Class 70: ditto.

New class currently being tendered for by DRS: Still in service.

 

There! 

One new shunter, three new main-line types at most and whatever remains of the present day fleet.

Cheers,

John.

[009 micro modeller]

Please tell me what private sector organisation runs Transport for London.

 

Nationalisation is not the same thing as running an organisation from Westminster / the DfT / the Home Office etc.

 

London Underground (as with the DLR rolling stock + infrastructure, various bits of bus infrastructure, the core Crossrail infrastructure + trains, the core ELL infrastructure , Overground Electrostars) IS A NATIONSALISED ORGAINSATION. It is run by Transport for London, part of the Grater London Authority whose ,members (and the Mayor) are elected by the citizens of London every 4 years.

 

What is true is that, as with Transport Scotland (which is a branch of the Scottish Government), the Westminster Government and the Department for Transport regard transport provision in areas with a devolved administration as nothing to do with them. Accordingly all decisions relating to London Underground are taken by TfL.

No, I'm just wondering if any future nationalisation should include central control (i.e. BR) of London Underground (still perhaps maintained as a 'brand') to avoid the cross-boundary issues discussed elsewhere. Are we excluding the Isle of Wight from the 'nationalisation' scenario or just assuming it can't have standard stock due to loading gauge issues?

[The Stationmaster]

No, I'm just wondering if any future nationalisation should include central control (i.e. BR) of London Underground (still perhaps maintained as a 'brand') to avoid the cross-boundary issues discussed elsewhere. Are we excluding the Isle of Wight from the 'nationalisation' scenario or just assuming it can't have standard stock due to loading gauge issues?

 

Why?  London Underground under public control co-existed quite happily alongside several of the Big Four, and subsequently BR just as happily as its various components had existed alongside or even jointly with both the Big four and back to the Pre-Grouping companies.

 

In many respects, with the exception of the spread of Overground there are far fewer instances of through working and cross boundary working than ever existed in the past.  For example I can't think offhand of any mainline freight operations taking place over LUL lines nowadays whereas they were numerous in past years, and most of the past sharing of mainline infrastructure by LUL (or constituent) services is long gone.

 

And why are cross boundary issues a problem?  Whatever way the railway is organised irrespective of who owns it there always have been and there always will be cross-boundary situations.  They existed between the various organisational levels of BR and in many respects they still exist.

[w124bob]

What, with the 100% tariffs on American made heavy goods and steel thanks to the trade war? I don't think so. No more EMD, GE, Wabtec...anyone know what the latest in Chinese high-speed 16 cylinder traction diesel engines is like?

A 66 copy.

[The Johnster]

Scrap all existing diesel locomotives and dmus for replacement with GM imports that run properly, but specify decent cabs.  2 types of locomotive and 2 types of dmu will be required.  The locos both Co-Cos and standardised for parts, but with a high and low power option and gearing options for 75mph or 60mph freight.  Dmus similarly standardised, but with different door/seating arrangements for local/commuter 90mph geared and long distance 125mp work.

 

This general plan to be repeated for overhead electric traction, again with standardised bodyshells/cabs, but with 110mph local and 160mph capable main line passenger stock.  3rd rail to be abandoned asap and replaced with 25kv overhead.  Some London commuter routes to have loading guage restricions eased with a view to double deck commuter trains; massive investment required for this but only solution to overcrowding on the ex 3rd rail network.  

 

First/Executive/Premium and whatever classes to be abolished.  All stock running at 125mph to have 2x1 seating and legroom consistent with current first class standards and wide aisles for catering to all seats; mains power and usb outlets at all seating bays, bays to align with windows, and wi-fi provided aboard all passenger trains.  90mph stock to have plug doors and full air conditioning, 2x2 seating with legroom consistent with current main line stock.  All vehicles on all trains to have toilets.  

 

New class of 3,000 hp electro-diesel bi-mode Bo-Bo with standard cab, and all motive power to be capable of running in mulitple via automatic couplers.  This to be used as assistance on banks, thunderbird work, heritage stock including head power on steam powered excursions. 

 

Standard cab with standardised controls on all trains and locomotives, designed for driver comfort and ease of operation.  Cab to be integral part of loco or coach body, with accident crumple zone and roll cage type protection for driver.  Standard formation of multiple unit train to be 4 vehicles for 90mph local, 8 for 125mph and +.

 

Standard automatic coupling on all vehicles to include braking and control connections, capable of uncoupling or coupling while trains are in motion under supervision of driver.

 

Cab signalling only throughout.

 

Liveries and branding to be universally applied across the system.  TFL stock to be 75mph capable and capable of working in multiple with BR; classic London Transport red livery to be restored.  Suggest Maunsell early Southern Railway type green for BR locos and multiple units, with Helvetica font branding and information.  Diesel stock to carry yellow line at cantrail and electric to carry red; any bi-mode to carry both.

 

Standard loco and stock profile to aid cleaning.

 

Changes to be fully implemented by 2030.

 

That'll do to be going on with!

 

 

The above is a sort of general wish list for improving the UK's railway from a traction and stock viewpoint; it's extreme unlikeliness and cost is a measure of the hole that the history of our railways has left us in.  The truth is that, whatever government is in power they are unlikely to have anything even scratching the surface of the cash needed, and a renationalised railway, very desirable in my opinion, will be monitored to death by the Treasury.  Britain deserves a 21st century railway but will never be willing to pay for one.

 

Suspicion of overspending on our railways is rooted deep, in the railway bubble of the 1840s when the promise of untold riches from the new technology was so spectacularly broken by Hudson.  The Overend and Gurney bank failure, associated with overlending to dodgy railway schemes, some decades later nailed the coffin lid on; many aspirational middle class families were ruined by these events, and in those days before Limited Liability legislation ruin meant the workhouse!  What followed, the main line network being essentially completed, was a major investment in branch lines, when local village businessmen and landowners were willingly persuaded by promotors whose credentials did not always bear close scrutiny.  Little Puddle In The Marsh was to at last have connections to big markets. we're all going to be rich!  

 

No you're not, and your railway will lose money until that nice Mr Beeching puts it out of it's misery in about 80 years time.  It will be bought out in a few months by the main line company, and the money, and your young people looking for work, will flow irredeemably outwards; you will eventually lose your village to weekend cottagers when cars are universal.

 

The British public does not trust railways, and the fact that they do not understand them makes matters worse.

[jjb1970]

I think if people did a lot of travelling on trains internationally, particularly work-a-day trains other than snazzy high speed services they might have a more positive impression of British trains. Are our trains perfect? No, but in my experience they're well above the international average and for the most part are clean, well presented, acceptably comfortable, service levels are high and you can generally get to where you need to get to without too much hassle. Certainly I haven't found them to be disgraced by any of the other European railways.

 

On the question, the freight companies can look after their own motive power but I think they'll continue to look at something equivalent to what they've already got, a 4000HP or so diesel electric with a compliant engine (I'm sure most of the recognised engine builders would be happy enough to work with a locomotive builder to provide a solution, Caterpillar are making some good engines, I'd avoid the high speed very highly blown jobs from MTU). For passenger trains, more Aventras, A Trains, Desiros etc will do the job.

[jjb1970]

A few years ago I assumed the GE Powerhaul series would supplant the Class 66 as the UK de-facto standard freight locomotive but it doesn't seem to have really set the world on fire. Siemens or Bombardier would be happy enough to do what Vossloh/Stadler did with their Eurolight and produce a UK loading gauge derivative of the Vectron or Traxx if the business was there.

[Hobby]

- single standard door threshold height.

 

 

From day to day experience I'd say a standard platform height would be far more useful!

 

I'm puzzled by some of the responses on the first page, all he asked was for ideas on standardisation of stock, money no object, people could have ignored the "scenario" if they'd wanted instead of getting het up about it...

 

From what I've seen The Johnster has given quite a good set of ideas, though whilst I'd also get rid of 1st I would standardise full width trains (not tilting loading gauge) and stick with 2+2 seating.

[Trains4U]

But as

 

From day to day experience I'd say a standard platform height would be far more useful!

 

I'm puzzled by some of the responses on the first page, all he asked was for ideas on standardisation of stock, money no object, people could have ignored the "scenario" if they'd wanted instead of getting het up about it...

 

From what I've seen The Johnster has given quite a good set of ideas, though whilst I'd also get rid of 1st I would standardise full width trains (not tilting loading gauge) and stick with 2+2 seating.

 

However, we  should all know that politics, along with religion and money, is one of those things that can trigger potentially disproportionate reactions, because it is a highly emotive subject.

 

This is why there are rules about discussing politics on the forum.

[GeoffAlan]

Interesting problem.

 

I feel that we have almost got there by default anyway. Compared to the vast number of different designs of Steam locos we had in 1948, there are far fewer classes of locomotives on the rails now. As has been said above natural obsolescence is taking care of some classes anyway. Remove the dirtiest classes and replace with a clean alternative as and when needed. 

 

I would take steps to reduce the larger number of Multiple Unit classes. I can see the need for a 125-140mph set for mainline use, and a commuter set with maybe 90mph capability, add on a secondary line set and duplicate in diesel and electric versions and you've done it. 

[Hobby]

This is why there are rules about discussing politics on the forum.

 

He wasn't discussing it, he just made up a scenario to justify a rethink of the railways in the UK, there is a big difference. It's a shame that people chose to politicise it and lose a member rather than just sticking to the basic premise...

 

Anyhow I don't want to end up falling out either so why don't we just go back to his basic premise:

 

If the Railways of Britain suddenly were allowed to spend lots of money to modernise/rationalise how would they change the stock to best serve the needs of the users (passengers and freight)?

 

I'd suggest it'd be pretty basic...

 

High Speed Trains:

 

5 or 6 coaches long, powered by electric motors driven by underfloor diesel engines with a "pantograph coach" so can use OHLE where available. Not ideal engine location wise but I'm not a fan of loco hauled having seen too many failures, multiple engine'd stock seems more reliable. Also no tilt to keep reliability. Money saved to be used to straighten out major curves where possible. One Class, 2+2 seating. 140mph max speed, see no need for anything faster in the UK.

 

Crosscountry Trains:

 

5 coaches, 125mph max speed, One class, 2+2 seating. Same set up as above for traction.

 

Suburban Trains:

 

6 coaches, through gangways, 3+2 seating. Diesel or electric traction dependant on location but both using electric traction motors and able to couple a diesel and electric set and able to run from each other (i.e. electric pickups can feed to diesel set to power traction motors. Yes I know there'd have to be some development in high voltage connections but I'm sure it could be done.

 

Local Trains (branchline):

 

3 coaches with SDO, diesel or electric traction, 2+2 seating.

 

 

All passenger units to be fitted with Power Doors, SDO and AirCon.

 

 

Freight:

 

4000hp Co-Co diesel electric with pantograph. Engine used to be multi cylinder with option to shut down cylinders to conserve fuel.

 

1000hp shunter/maintenance loco

 

All freight to be standardised as either container or bulk.

 

 

On a general theme:

 

Standard Coupling/braking system, including freight locos and end of freight trains, to allow rescue to be easier.

Platform Heights standardised.

Platform lengths increased.

OHLE to be standard, phasing out of 3rd rail.

If possible larger loading gauge to be phased in for major commuter runs to allow for double deck passenger trains.

Clockface timetable.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Hobby