In article ,
Paul Scott wrote:
Underfloor engines on bi-mode IEP have been getting mentioned in most rail
mags for a few months, but last week's announcement by Hammond that they
were definitely one of two options for off the wires running was the first
formal mention, I think.

Hmm, I though the original statement I read just talked about "a
modified IEP" or some such as one of the option - no technical details
that I recall. Have more details been released since that statement,
then?

-roy

In article , (Roy
Badami) wrote:

In article ,
Paul Scott wrote:
Underfloor engines on bi-mode IEP have been getting mentioned in most
rail mags for a few months, but last week's announcement by Hammond
that they were definitely one of two options for off the wires running
was the first formal mention, I think.

Hmm, I though the original statement I read just talked about "a
modified IEP" or some such as one of the option - no technical details
that I recall. Have more details been released since that statement,
then?

It's sufficiently modified for Bombardier to cry "foul" over the
procurement process, apparently.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:23:36 -0600
wrote:
In article , (Roy
Badami) wrote:

In article ,
Paul Scott wrote:
Underfloor engines on bi-mode IEP have been getting mentioned in most
rail mags for a few months, but last week's announcement by Hammond
that they were definitely one of two options for off the wires running
was the first formal mention, I think.

Hmm, I though the original statement I read just talked about "a
modified IEP" or some such as one of the option - no technical details
that I recall. Have more details been released since that statement,
then?

It's sufficiently modified for Bombardier to cry "foul" over the
procurement process, apparently.

Can someone explaimn the fuss about bimodes? The french have had them
for a while and they seem to work ok.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_82500


B2003

"Roy Badami" wrote in message
...

Hmm, I though the original statement I read just talked about "a
modified IEP" or some such as one of the option - no technical details
that I recall. Have more details been released since that statement,
then?

Laterst info I'm going by is this DfT press release of 25th Nov:

http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosit...2&SubjectId=36

"Intercity Express Programme

13. Following today's announcement, two options remain under consideration:

Agility Trains' revised bid, for a mixed fleet of some all-electric trains,
and some electric trains which are also equipped with underfloor diesel
generators.

A proposal for a fleet of new all-electric trains which could be coupled to
new diesel locomotives where the overhead electric power lines end."

Paul S

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, d wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:23:36 -0600
wrote:
In article , (Roy
Badami) wrote:

In article ,
Paul Scott wrote:
Underfloor engines on bi-mode IEP have been getting mentioned in most
rail mags for a few months, but last week's announcement by Hammond
that they were definitely one of two options for off the wires running
was the first formal mention, I think.

Hmm, I though the original statement I read just talked about "a
modified IEP" or some such as one of the option - no technical details
that I recall. Have more details been released since that statement,
then?

It's sufficiently modified for Bombardier to cry "foul" over the
procurement process, apparently.

Can someone explaimn the fuss about bimodes? The french have had them
for a while and they seem to work ok.

It'd mean diesel-engined trains running under the wires *all the time*,
and you know how upset the ukr chaps get about that!

tom

--
DO NOT WANT!

On Dec 1, 2:46*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:23:36 -0600





wrote:
In article , (Roy
Badami) wrote:

In article ,
Paul Scott wrote:
Underfloor engines on bi-mode IEP have been getting mentioned in most
rail mags for a few months, but last week's announcement by Hammond
that they were definitely one of two options for off the wires running
was the first formal mention, I think.

Hmm, I though the original statement I read just talked about "a
modified IEP" or some such as one of the option - no technical details
that I recall. *Have more details been released since that statement,
then?

It's sufficiently modified for Bombardier to cry "foul" over the
procurement process, apparently.

Can someone explaimn the fuss about bimodes? The french have had them
for a while and they seem to work ok.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_82500

B2003

As I keep saying - but I think only at 160km/h and in a bigger body.
Still, should be relatively easy to adapt.
Tim

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
rth.li...
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, d wrote:

Can someone explaimn the fuss about bimodes? The french have had them
for a while and they seem to work ok.

It'd mean diesel-engined trains running under the wires *all the time*,
and you know how upset the ukr chaps get about that!

The much debated problem was the DfT specified 10 car bi-mode, which was
believed to be badly underpowered either under the wires, or off the wires.
Roger Ford of Modern Railways argued that the diesel would be needed most of
the time when under wires, DfT apparently had a different understanding (or
a completely different set of Newton's laws of motion maybe) and reckoned
the diesel would be needed only occasionally for a quick boost.

The 5 car bi-mode IEP, OTOH, had adequate installed power in either electric
or diesel power, but wasted a complete driving car, so would have little or
no capacity improvement over the dreaded Voyager.

The French unit quoted by 'boltar' is a relatively low speed local E/DMU,
IIRC it has a diesel generator in a partitioned off area in one of the
passenger areas, with a gangway past it - easy enough in their larger gauge
trains maybe? I don't think anyone's denied that it works, but would it
scale up to a 125 mph intercity train at UK dimensions?

Paul S