There is a good article in MR this month about why TPE / Abelio are going
to order 15+ new locos.
The 68's are the most reliable engines/trains in their fleet, but the
running costs, and emissions are terrible. They are leased until 2023, so
it looks like they will be going off lease next year, and will go back to
DRS.

The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
that state.
They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
elsewhere for new locos.

Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
> that state.

I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
power output less?

> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
> elsewhere for new locos.

It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel power. I
would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by running the
engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...

In general, are loco engines suitable for this kind of stop/start operation
or do they have problems?

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
>> that state.
>
> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
> power output less?

The alternator voltage is too low at idle. I would have thought that an
electronic fix should be possible?

>
>> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
>> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
>> elsewhere for new locos.
>
> It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel power. I
> would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by running the
> engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
> Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...

I would have thought it possible to fit a small auxiliary diesel engine to
be run when the main power unit is shut down. It would provide hotel power,
keep the batteries charged, and help re-start the main engine. It might
even keep the main engine's coolant and oil warm. That way, the motive
power unit could be shut down, rather than left idling noisily, when not
required for an extended period.

>
> In general, are loco engines suitable for this kind of stop/start operation
> or do they have problems?
>

The engines are apparently performing well. It's just that they are left
idling at notch 3 for long periods, which wastes fuel, makes a loud noise
and pollutes the air. A small auxiliary engine would be far quieter,
consume much less fuel, and be less polluting.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
>>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
>>> that state.
>>
>> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
>> power output less?
>
> The alternator voltage is too low at idle. I would have thought that an
> electronic fix should be possible?
>
>>
>>> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
>>> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
>>> elsewhere for new locos.
>>
>> It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel power. I
>> would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by running the
>> engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
>> Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...
>
> I would have thought it possible to fit a small auxiliary diesel engine to
> be run when the main power unit is shut down. It would provide hotel power,
> keep the batteries charged, and help re-start the main engine. It might
> even keep the main engine's coolant and oil warm. That way, the motive
> power unit could be shut down, rather than left idling noisily, when not
> required for an extended period.
>
>>
>> In general, are loco engines suitable for this kind of stop/start operation
>> or do they have problems?
>>
>
> The engines are apparently performing well. It's just that they are left
> idling at notch 3 for long periods, which wastes fuel, makes a loud noise
> and pollutes the air. A small auxiliary engine would be far quieter,
> consume much less fuel, and be less polluting.
>
>
Why can’t there be a shore power feed for an extended terminus stop?

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>>>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>>>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>>>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
>>>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
>>>> that state.
>>>
>>> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
>>> power output less?
>>
>> The alternator voltage is too low at idle. I would have thought that an
>> electronic fix should be possible?
>>
>>>
>>>> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
>>>> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
>>>> elsewhere for new locos.
>>>
>>> It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel power. I
>>> would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by running the
>>> engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
>>> Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...
>>
>> I would have thought it possible to fit a small auxiliary diesel engine to
>> be run when the main power unit is shut down. It would provide hotel power,
>> keep the batteries charged, and help re-start the main engine. It might
>> even keep the main engine's coolant and oil warm. That way, the motive
>> power unit could be shut down, rather than left idling noisily, when not
>> required for an extended period.
>>
>>>
>>> In general, are loco engines suitable for this kind of stop/start operation
>>> or do they have problems?
>>>
>>
>> The engines are apparently performing well. It's just that they are left
>> idling at notch 3 for long periods, which wastes fuel, makes a loud noise
>> and pollutes the air. A small auxiliary engine would be far quieter,
>> consume much less fuel, and be less polluting.
>>
>>
> Why can’t there be a shore power feed for an extended terminus stop?
>
>

That would certainly be better, particularly for the overnight maintenance
stop.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel power. I
>> would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by running the
>> engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
>> Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...
>
> I would have thought it possible to fit a small auxiliary diesel engine to
> be run when the main power unit is shut down. It would provide hotel power,
> keep the batteries charged, and help re-start the main engine. It might
> even keep the main engine's coolant and oil warm. That way, the motive
> power unit could be shut down, rather than left idling noisily, when not
> required for an extended period.

Some Greyhound buses have (had?) a similar arrangement with a small donkey
engine to run the A/C when the bus was stopped. I don’t know if it still
ran when the bus was moving.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 20:06:16 +0000, Sam Wilson wrote:

> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>> I would have thought it possible to fit a small auxiliary diesel engine
>> to be run when the main power unit is shut down. It would provide hotel
>> power,
>> keep the batteries charged, and help re-start the main engine. It might
>> even keep the main engine's coolant and oil warm. That way, the motive
>> power unit could be shut down, rather than left idling noisily, when
>> not required for an extended period.
>
> Some Greyhound buses have (had?) a similar arrangement with a small
> donkey engine to run the A/C when the bus was stopped. I don’t know if
> it still ran when the bus was moving.

BR did it 39 years ago, but to a larger footprint with the converted
Class 25 ETHELs, which were not at all efficient, and now, 30+ years
later, it seems a rather daft idea, but there must have been a dire
shortage of ETH engines for them to even get designed, never mind rebuilt.

Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:

>
> BR did it 39 years ago, but to a larger footprint with the converted
> Class 25 ETHELs, which were not at all efficient, and now, 30+ years
> later, it seems a rather daft idea, but there must have been a dire
> shortage of ETH engines for them to even get designed, never mind rebuilt.
>
They weren’t rebuilt that much were they?
Traction motors removed, some cabling , sockets ,a paint job and some
control alterations.

Fairly cheap job using an existing asset with other examples already
being scrapped .

GH

On 12/03/2022 23:39, Marland wrote:
> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> BR did it 39 years ago, but to a larger footprint with the converted
>> Class 25 ETHELs, which were not at all efficient, and now, 30+ years
>> later, it seems a rather daft idea, but there must have been a dire
>> shortage of ETH engines for them to even get designed, never mind rebuilt.
>>
> They weren’t rebuilt that much were they?
> Traction motors removed, some cabling , sockets ,a paint job and some
> control alterations.
>
> Fairly cheap job using an existing asset with other examples already
> being scrapped .
Originally they weren't intended to be used on a moving train but to
pre-heat ETH rolling stock.

Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
> There is a good article in MR this month about why TPE / Abelio are going
> to order 15+ new locos.
> The 68's are the most reliable engines/trains in their fleet, but the
> running costs, and emissions are terrible. They are leased until 2023, so
> it looks like they will be going off lease next year, and will go back to
> DRS.
>
> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'.

That's common across all recent diesel locomotives which provide electrical
supply to the train; HSTs, 57, 67, 68 (and indeed IET) all idle faster when
supplying power.

> At notch 3, the engine ,
> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
> that state.
> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
> elsewhere for new locos.
>

Wasn't this a loco design which Stadler acquired from someone else, maybe
Vossloh?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
>> that state.
>
> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
> power output less?
>

Neither, I suspect, I think it's very likely to be as designed.

>> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
>> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
>> elsewhere for new locos.
>
> It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel power. I
> would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by running the
> engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
> Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...
>

We discussed this quite recently; the conclusion reached was that train
hotel loads have potential to be higher than most people expect.

> In general, are loco engines suitable for this kind of stop/start operation
> or do they have problems?
>

I suspect modern engines are ok with it, provided they're preheated first
(or haven't cooled down). It's cold starts they don't like.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
>>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
>>> that state.
>>
>> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
>> power output less?
>
> The alternator voltage is too low at idle. I would have thought that an
> electronic fix should be possible?
>
>>
>>> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
>>> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
>>> elsewhere for new locos.
>>
>> It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel power. I
>> would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by running the
>> engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
>> Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...
>
> I would have thought it possible to fit a small auxiliary diesel engine to
> be run when the main power unit is shut down. It would provide hotel power,
> keep the batteries charged, and help re-start the main engine. It might
> even keep the main engine's coolant and oil warm. That way, the motive
> power unit could be shut down, rather than left idling noisily, when not
> required for an extended period.
>
>>
>> In general, are loco engines suitable for this kind of stop/start operation
>> or do they have problems?
>>
>
> The engines are apparently performing well. It's just that they are left
> idling at notch 3 for long periods, which wastes fuel, makes a loud noise
> and pollutes the air. A small auxiliary engine would be far quieter,
> consume much less fuel, and be less polluting.
>

We discussed that possibility in the recent thread, IIRC. I don't think
it'd be easy to retrofit to an existing loco, designed without provision
for that.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> BR did it 39 years ago, but to a larger footprint with the converted
>> Class 25 ETHELs, which were not at all efficient, and now, 30+ years
>> later, it seems a rather daft idea, but there must have been a dire
>> shortage of ETH engines for them to even get designed, never mind rebuilt.
>>
> They weren’t rebuilt that much were they?
> Traction motors removed, some cabling , sockets ,a paint job and some
> control alterations.
>
> Fairly cheap job using an existing asset with other examples already
> being scrapped .
>
>

A more accurate comparison with the current suggestion is the class 27s
(27/2) for the Edinburgh-Glasgow top-n-tail sets (later replaced by
47/7+DBSO), which had a second diesel engine fitted, in the space
previously occupied by the steam heat boiler, to provide ETH for the train.
IIRC several of them caught fire?

Aha: "It was later decided that as the Mark 2 stock was dual (steam or
electric) heated, to convert half the 27/1 fleet to electric train heat, by
replacing the train heating boiler with a Deutz 8-cylinder, air-cooled
diesel engine and alternator. The conversions were then classified as Class
27/2, and were used on one end of the train, with a 27/1 on the other. The
very intensive 90 mph (140 km/h) "push-pull" service was demanding on the
locomotives and reliability started to suffer. The 27/2s, especially,
appeared prone to fire damage, especially from their electric train heating
alternators."

<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_27>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>>>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>>>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>>>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
>>>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
>>>> that state.
>>>
>>> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
>>> power output less?
>>
>> The alternator voltage is too low at idle. I would have thought that an
>> electronic fix should be possible?
>>
>>>
>>>> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
>>>> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
>>>> elsewhere for new locos.
>>>
>>> It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel power. I
>>> would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by running the
>>> engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
>>> Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...
>>
>> I would have thought it possible to fit a small auxiliary diesel engine to
>> be run when the main power unit is shut down. It would provide hotel power,
>> keep the batteries charged, and help re-start the main engine. It might
>> even keep the main engine's coolant and oil warm. That way, the motive
>> power unit could be shut down, rather than left idling noisily, when not
>> required for an extended period.
>>
>>>
>>> In general, are loco engines suitable for this kind of stop/start operation
>>> or do they have problems?
>>>
>>
>> The engines are apparently performing well. It's just that they are left
>> idling at notch 3 for long periods, which wastes fuel, makes a loud noise
>> and pollutes the air. A small auxiliary engine would be far quieter,
>> consume much less fuel, and be less polluting.
>>
>>
> Why can’t there be a shore power feed for an extended terminus stop?
>
>

As discussed in the recent thread, there can, but it depends on certain
conditions.

Firstly, a suitable power supply being available (presumably 3-phase), and
a suitable location to put the converter and control gear.

Secondly, how many individual locations within the station will need
equipment fitted? Just one terminal platform, or several? Will the supply
need to be specified for just one train or for several at once, even if
that's not required in the current timetable? Do these trains ever stable
'on top of' another train at the buffer stops? In which case do you need a
second set of equipment provided 2/3 car lengths from the buffers?

Thirdly, who's going to connect/disconnect it? On some TOCs which use this
equipment it's the drivers, but on my TOC drivers haven't done so within
the last 20 years, AFAIK; if that's the case then you either need to
provide local staff to do it, or reach agreement with ASLEF… When shore
supply was briefly

Fourthly (well, third-and-a-half really), you then need to consider
timings. Hypothetically, perhaps the current timetable at the distant
terminus allows the train to arrive, driver to secure the train, walking
time to the mess room and back, 30 minutes break and time to mobilise the
train (as an example, we need 57 minutes between arrival and departure at
Paddington to have a 30 minute break). Add in 5/10 minutes allowance to
connect/disconnect shore supply (perhaps allowing time to dress in
appropriate PPE and clean yourself afterwards before eating; though I guess
that at least effluent all over the underframe isn't a problem now, but
dead animals, grease and brake dust still is); suddenly your driver can't
work the same train back out, and you need either another driver at the
station (ie long layovers, plus re-writing many of the driver diagrams and
hence the roster) or another set laying over at the station (another £?? of
expenditure, perhaps; plus see also point 2c).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 10:48:04 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
>>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
>>> that state.
>>
>> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
>> power output less?
>>
>
>Neither, I suspect, I think it's very likely to be as designed.

Given this was specifically built to be a passenger locomotive it doesn't
seem to me like a particularly smart design. Didn't they think of hotel loads
during the design phase or is running the engine at higher than idle rpm
in stations normal in europe?

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 10:48:04 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>>>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>>>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>>>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
>>>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
>>>> that state.
>>>
>>> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
>>> power output less?
>>>
>>
>> Neither, I suspect, I think it's very likely to be as designed.
>
> Given this was specifically built to be a passenger locomotive it doesn't
> seem to me like a particularly smart design. Didn't they think of hotel loads
> during the design phase or is running the engine at higher than idle rpm
> in stations normal in europe?
>
>

As I said, it's normal for every UK passenger locomotive built since the
1970s. I don't know enough about the ones built in the 1960s.

I also don't know enough about non-UK diesel passenger locomotives to say
how they run.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Am 14.03.2022 um 11:48 schrieb Anna Noyd-Dryver:
> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>> There is a good article in MR this month about why TPE / Abelio are going
>> to order 15+ new locos.
>> The 68's are the most reliable engines/trains in their fleet, but the
>> running costs, and emissions are terrible. They are leased until 2023, so
>> it looks like they will be going off lease next year, and will go back to
>> DRS.
>>
>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'.
>
> That's common across all recent diesel locomotives which provide electrical
> supply to the train; HSTs, 57, 67, 68 (and indeed IET) all idle faster when
> supplying power.

The requirements for 500kW hotel power as of Wikipedia is a typical sign
that it's completely expected to need more than idling. The German
Class 218 (built from 1968 onwards) when pulling InterCity trains was
using double traction; effectively one plus a bit for traction, almost
one for hotel power.

With the majority of the InterCity network electrified, we don't see
many long-term idlers but I remember some local trains in Frankfurt
station "more than idling" for half an hour before setting off.

Rolf

On 2022-03-12 11:11:24 +0000, Recliner said:

> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
>>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
>>> that state.
>>
>> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
>> power output less?
>
> The alternator voltage is too low at idle. I would have thought that an
> electronic fix should be possible?
>
>>
>>> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
>>> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
>>> elsewhere for new locos.
>>
>> It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel power. I
>> would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by running the
>> engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
>> Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...
>
> I would have thought it possible to fit a small auxiliary diesel engine to
> be run when the main power unit is shut down. It would provide hotel power,
> keep the batteries charged, and help re-start the main engine. It might
> even keep the main engine's coolant and oil warm. That way, the motive
> power unit could be shut down, rather than left idling noisily, when not
> required for an extended period.
>
>>
>> In general, are loco engines suitable for this kind of stop/start operation
>> or do they have problems?
>>
>
> The engines are apparently performing well. It's just that they are left
> idling at notch 3 for long periods, which wastes fuel, makes a loud noise
> and pollutes the air. A small auxiliary engine would be far quieter,
> consume much less fuel, and be less polluting.

Seems remiscent of the F40PH locomotives, formerly used by Amtrak, and
still used by VIA and a number of others. As built, the HEP
(N.American terminology for ETH) was provided as 3 phase, from an
alternator on the prime mover, but this needed to be fixed frequency,
so the prime mover was run at full rpm all the time, with power
controled by exciting the main alternator. This obviously is a
terrible idea, and later builds used an entirely separate diesel
engine/alternator set for HEP, with a lot of older locomotives
converted, so that the prime mover only drovee the wheels, and could
run in a conventional variable speed manner.

Robin

On 2022-03-14 10:48:02 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:

> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>> There is a good article in MR this month about why TPE / Abelio are going
>> to order 15+ new locos.
>> The 68's are the most reliable engines/trains in their fleet, but the
>> running costs, and emissions are terrible. They are leased until 2023, so
>> it looks like they will be going off lease next year, and will go back to
>> DRS.
>>
>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'.
>
> That's common across all recent diesel locomotives which provide electrical
> supply to the train; HSTs, 57, 67, 68 (and indeed IET) all idle faster when
> supplying power.
>
>> At notch 3, the engine ,
>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
>> that state.
>> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
>> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
>> elsewhere for new locos.
>>
>
> Wasn't this a loco design which Stadler acquired from someone else, maybe
> Vossloh?

The 68 is derived from a Vossloh freight locomotive design, and part of
the same lineage as the class 67.

Robin

On 2022-03-12 11:22:41 +0000, Tweed said:

> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>>>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>>>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>>>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
>>>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
>>>> that state.
>>>
>>> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
>>> power output less?
>>
>> The alternator voltage is too low at idle. I would have thought that an
>> electronic fix should be possible?
>>
>>>
>>>> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
>>>> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
>>>> elsewhere for new locos.
>>>
>>> It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel power. I
>>> would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by running the
>>> engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
>>> Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...
>>
>> I would have thought it possible to fit a small auxiliary diesel engine to
>> be run when the main power unit is shut down. It would provide hotel power,
>> keep the batteries charged, and help re-start the main engine. It might
>> even keep the main engine's coolant and oil warm. That way, the motive
>> power unit could be shut down, rather than left idling noisily, when not
>> required for an extended period.
>>
>>>
>>> In general, are loco engines suitable for this kind of stop/start operation
>>> or do they have problems?
>>>
>>
>> The engines are apparently performing well. It's just that they are left
>> idling at notch 3 for long periods, which wastes fuel, makes a loud noise
>> and pollutes the air. A small auxiliary engine would be far quieter,
>> consume much less fuel, and be less polluting.
>>
>>
> Why can’t there be a shore power feed for an extended terminus stop?

I wonder how many of the places it needs to rest are electrified?
Perhaps a pantograph and small transformer to allow it to use that as a
form of shore power for hotel loads would be a viable solution.
Probably not retrofitable, but something to consider for a new design.
Comes with the benefit of not needing either new equipment installed in
stations, and not needing much in the way of staff to
connect/disconnect, as raisign and lowering a pantograph can be done at
the push of a button.

Robin

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-03-12 11:11:24 +0000, Recliner said:
>
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>>>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>>>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>>>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
>>>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
>>>> that state.
>>>
>>> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
>>> power output less?
>>
>> The alternator voltage is too low at idle. I would have thought that an
>> electronic fix should be possible?
>>
>>>
>>>> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
>>>> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
>>>> elsewhere for new locos.
>>>
>>> It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel power. I
>>> would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by running the
>>> engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
>>> Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...
>>
>> I would have thought it possible to fit a small auxiliary diesel engine to
>> be run when the main power unit is shut down. It would provide hotel power,
>> keep the batteries charged, and help re-start the main engine. It might
>> even keep the main engine's coolant and oil warm. That way, the motive
>> power unit could be shut down, rather than left idling noisily, when not
>> required for an extended period.
>>
>>>
>>> In general, are loco engines suitable for this kind of stop/start operation
>>> or do they have problems?
>>>
>>
>> The engines are apparently performing well. It's just that they are left
>> idling at notch 3 for long periods, which wastes fuel, makes a loud noise
>> and pollutes the air. A small auxiliary engine would be far quieter,
>> consume much less fuel, and be less polluting.
>
> Seems remiscent of the F40PH locomotives, formerly used by Amtrak, and
> still used by VIA and a number of others. As built, the HEP
> (N.American terminology for ETH) was provided as 3 phase, from an
> alternator on the prime mover, but this needed to be fixed frequency,
> so the prime mover was run at full rpm all the time, with power
> controled by exciting the main alternator. This obviously is a
> terrible idea, and later builds used an entirely separate diesel
> engine/alternator set for HEP, with a lot of older locomotives
> converted, so that the prime mover only drovee the wheels, and could
> run in a conventional variable speed manner.
>
>

Whereas HST 3-phase ETH operates in a near-permanent state of brownout.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Am 14.03.2022 um 16:43 schrieb Bob:
> On 2022-03-12 11:22:41 +0000, Tweed said:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>>>>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>>>>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so
>>>>> they have
>>>>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the
>>>>> engine ,
>>>>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour
>>>>> when in
>>>>> that state.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
>>>> power output less?
>>>
>>> The alternator voltage is too low at idle. I would have thought that an
>>> electronic fix should be possible?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
>>>>> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
>>>>> elsewhere for new locos.
>>>>
>>>> It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel
>>>> power.  I
>>>> would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by
>>>> running the
>>>> engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
>>>> Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...
>>>
>>> I would have thought it possible to fit a small auxiliary diesel
>>> engine to
>>> be run when the main power unit is shut down. It would provide hotel
>>> power,
>>> keep the batteries charged, and help re-start the main engine. It might
>>> even keep the main engine's coolant and oil warm. That way, the motive
>>> power unit could be shut down, rather than left idling noisily, when not
>>> required for an extended period.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In general, are loco engines suitable for this kind of stop/start
>>>> operation
>>>> or do they have problems?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The engines are apparently performing well. It's just that they are left
>>> idling at notch 3 for long periods, which wastes fuel, makes a loud
>>> noise
>>> and pollutes the air.  A small auxiliary engine would be far quieter,
>>> consume much less fuel, and be less polluting.
>>>
>>>
>> Why can’t there be a shore power feed for an extended terminus stop?
>
> I wonder how many of the places it needs to rest are electrified?
> Perhaps a pantograph and small transformer to allow it to use that as a
> form of shore power for hotel loads would be a viable solution. Probably
> not retrofitable, but something to consider for a new design. Comes with
> the benefit of not needing either new equipment installed in stations,
> and not needing much in the way of staff to connect/disconnect, as
> raisign and lowering a pantograph can be done at the push of a button.

I vaguely remember seeing pictures of a dining car with panto to
continue cooking while engines are changed over (google finds a thread
on rec.railroad from 1994 on the topic- seemed to exist in Germany and
in Switzerland).

Alternatively, integrate a 'Scharfenberg Coupling' for hotel power into
the buffer stop?

Rolf

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Add in 5/10 minutes allowance to
> connect/disconnect shore supply (perhaps allowing time to dress in
> appropriate PPE and clean yourself afterwards before eating; though I guess
> that at least effluent all over the underframe isn't a problem now, but
> dead animals, grease and brake dust still is); suddenly your driver can't
> work the same train back out, and you need either another driver at the
> station (ie long layovers, plus re-writing many of the driver diagrams and
> hence the roster) or another set laying over at the station (another £?? of
> expenditure, perhaps; plus see also point 2c).

Not to disagree with your other points, but it could be provided by points a
bit like EV chargers under manhole-style flaps on the platform surface. The
charge point is on the loco/coaches above platform level (perhaps one point
per coach to reduce alignment issues). Driver gets out of cab, bends down,
unlocks flap that's in the platform surface near the edge, grabs cable and
plugs into side of loco. Maybe there is some kind of RFID style lock so
they just press the flap with their foot and the cable pops out. Takes
about as much time and hassle as plugging in an EV (could even use the same
connectors/etc).

Then the cable is interlocked with the traction so you can't drive away with
it plugged in.

You might want to wear gloves/wash your hands afterwards, but it would be
about as dirty as a roadside EV charger might be, and you wouldn't need to
leave platform level.

Theo

On 2022-03-14 16:21:36 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:

> Am 14.03.2022 um 16:43 schrieb Bob:
>> On 2022-03-12 11:22:41 +0000, Tweed said:
>>
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>>>>>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so they have
>>>>>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the engine ,
>>>>>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour when in
>>>>>> that state.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
>>>>> power output less?
>>>>
>>>> The alternator voltage is too low at idle. I would have thought that an
>>>> electronic fix should be possible?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
>>>>>> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
>>>>>> elsewhere for new locos.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel power.  I
>>>>> would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by running the
>>>>> engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
>>>>> Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought it possible to fit a small auxiliary diesel engine to
>>>> be run when the main power unit is shut down. It would provide hotel power,
>>>> keep the batteries charged, and help re-start the main engine. It might
>>>> even keep the main engine's coolant and oil warm. That way, the motive
>>>> power unit could be shut down, rather than left idling noisily, when not
>>>> required for an extended period.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, are loco engines suitable for this kind of stop/start operation
>>>>> or do they have problems?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The engines are apparently performing well. It's just that they are left
>>>> idling at notch 3 for long periods, which wastes fuel, makes a loud noise
>>>> and pollutes the air.  A small auxiliary engine would be far quieter,
>>>> consume much less fuel, and be less polluting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why can’t there be a shore power feed for an extended terminus stop?
>>
>> I wonder how many of the places it needs to rest are electrified?
>> Perhaps a pantograph and small transformer to allow it to use that as a
>> form of shore power for hotel loads would be a viable solution.
>> Probably not retrofitable, but something to consider for a new design.
>> Comes with the benefit of not needing either new equipment installed in
>> stations, and not needing much in the way of staff to
>> connect/disconnect, as raisign and lowering a pantograph can be done at
>> the push of a button.
>
> I vaguely remember seeing pictures of a dining car with panto to
> continue cooking while engines are changed over (google finds a thread
> on rec.railroad from 1994 on the topic- seemed to exist in Germany and
> in Switzerland).

SBB certainly used to have pantograph fitted dining cars, though the
pantographs have since been removed, you can see where they used to sit
from the roof profile.

Robin

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 14.03.2022 um 16:43 schrieb Bob:
>> On 2022-03-12 11:22:41 +0000, Tweed said:
>>
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The engine noise/running problem is explained. The alternators cannot
>>>>>> supply the train power, even in the terminus, at idle speed, so
>>>>>> they have
>>>>>> to run at 'Notch 3' to keep the coaches 'live'. At notch 3, the
>>>>>> engine ,
>>>>>> apparently, throbs like mad. And uses 60 litres of diesel a hour
>>>>>> when in
>>>>>> that state.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if that's because the hotel load is more than expected, or the
>>>>> power output less?
>>>>
>>>> The alternator voltage is too low at idle. I would have thought that an
>>>> electronic fix should be possible?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> They have tried to fix the problem, but, reading between the lines,
>>>>>> Stadler cannot fix the low voltage at idle fault, so they are looking
>>>>>> elsewhere for new locos.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a bit disappointing that locos still idle to provide hotel
>>>>> power.  I
>>>>> would have thought that a battery pack to provide it, charged by
>>>>> running the
>>>>> engine periodically and then stopping it, would be much more efficient.
>>>>> Although I suppose there might be weight and volume issues...
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought it possible to fit a small auxiliary diesel
>>>> engine to
>>>> be run when the main power unit is shut down. It would provide hotel
>>>> power,
>>>> keep the batteries charged, and help re-start the main engine. It might
>>>> even keep the main engine's coolant and oil warm. That way, the motive
>>>> power unit could be shut down, rather than left idling noisily, when not
>>>> required for an extended period.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, are loco engines suitable for this kind of stop/start
>>>>> operation
>>>>> or do they have problems?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The engines are apparently performing well. It's just that they are left
>>>> idling at notch 3 for long periods, which wastes fuel, makes a loud
>>>> noise
>>>> and pollutes the air.  A small auxiliary engine would be far quieter,
>>>> consume much less fuel, and be less polluting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why can’t there be a shore power feed for an extended terminus stop?
>>
>> I wonder how many of the places it needs to rest are electrified?
>> Perhaps a pantograph and small transformer to allow it to use that as a
>> form of shore power for hotel loads would be a viable solution. Probably
>> not retrofitable, but something to consider for a new design. Comes with
>> the benefit of not needing either new equipment installed in stations,
>> and not needing much in the way of staff to connect/disconnect, as
>> raisign and lowering a pantograph can be done at the push of a button.
>
> I vaguely remember seeing pictures of a dining car with panto to
> continue cooking while engines are changed over (google finds a thread
> on rec.railroad from 1994 on the topic- seemed to exist in Germany and
> in Switzerland).
>

RhB have/had carriages with pantographs on the Albula line because the
locomotive's train supply wasn't powerful enough for the whole train! I
don't know whether that's still the case.

> Alternatively, integrate a 'Scharfenberg Coupling' for hotel power into
> the buffer stop?
>

We're supposed to stop at least six feet from the buffers ;) Such a device
would therefore presumably need to move out from the buffers to meet the
stationary train. You'd also need to fit suitable couplers to both loco and
stock, which AFAIK all still use conventional buffers and couplers
(presumably buckeye within the train?). Plus is the Dellner/Scharfenberg
coupler's electrical connection suitable for ~800V DC at a suitable power
rating? AFAIK no UK DMU/EMUs transmit hotel power between coupled units.

Anna Noyd-Dryver