Generator Vans on the Enterprise

dowlingm

IE and NIR seem to be keeping this development on the downlow but apparently two Electricity Generating Vans from the Mark 3 fleet have been rescued from the scrapper/storage-with-a-view-to-vandalism fate of the remainder and sent to Belfast, (Wiki says two more in 2010) with a view to being married to the Enterprise sets. Apparently some testing may have been done at Heuston when an Enterprise set was trapped by the Malahide viaduct incident.

Enterprise trains currently receive their power from the engine (Head End Power) which has led to failures in the past because of the required engine running regime as well as non-Enterprise 201s being rotated into the Enterprise fleet to "rest" the Enterprise units.

Apart from an increase in reliability because of a diminishment of HEP-related failures (hopefully), is there any other way in which Enterprise will be improved by this in terms of being able to accelerate faster/run longer trains/being able to carry parcels or bikes in the EGV? I'm not very clued in on what an EGV did on the Mk3 fleet.

Judgement Day

Very interesting - but what parcels are you speaking about?

lord lucan

The main gain that i can see is the reduction of 'stress' on the 201's. The HEP issue is a massive drain on the big GM's,a mk III Gen van would help the loco roster but i wouldn't see any gain in loco performance or longer train lengths. Atm the enterprise is usually a 7 coach formation,i've no idea if they're planning on running a 7+1 gen van formation or 6 + 1 gen van formation.

There was/is room for parcels & bike in the mk III vans iirc.

dowlingm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Very interesting - but what parcels are you speaking about?

Ahem, yes - more of a theoretical point, that one.

Hungerford

dowlingm wrote: »

IE and NIR seem to be keeping this development on the downlow but apparently two Electricity Generating Vans from the Mark 3 fleet have been rescued from the scrapper/storage-with-a-view-to-vandalism fate of the remainder and sent to Belfast.

It's not a particularly top secret project - quite a few of us have known about it for quite some time. Some of the stored MK3 sets have also been earmarked for hourly Enterprise services if the UTA Mark 2 DRD give Translink the money to run them.

Terrontress

There is already an area for bicycles and post / parcels in the DVT on the Enterprise.

Judgement Day

Terrontress wrote: »

There is already an area for bicycles and post / parcels in the DVT on the Enterprise.

I refer you to post #3 - there may be a space but it is certainly NOT used by mail or parcels as both CIE and An Post have diverted same to further congest the road network.

Victor

dowlingm wrote: »

Apart from an increase in reliability because of a diminishment of HEP-related failures (hopefully), is there any other way in which Enterprise will be improved by this in terms of being able to accelerate faster/run longer trains/being able to carry parcels or bikes in the EGV? I'm not very clued in on what an EGV did on the Mk3 fleet.

EGV = Guards van.

The Enterprise train use fuel at a prodigious rate because of the HEP and there is downtime as they need to be refuelled constantly. Hopefully, this would mean quicker turn-arounds for locos as well as fewer break-downs.

lord lucan

Found this IRRS journal re:Enterprise through google search,it's from last year.

http://www.irrs.ie/Journal%20170/170%20News%20NIR.htm

I found this little paragraph interesting: "Head-end Power - In May, the Minister for Regional Development was asked ‘for an estimate of the cost of providing separate generator functions to avoid the use of head-end power on the Enterprise service’. He replied to the Assembly: ‘In conjunction with IÉ, Translink are assessing a number of options for reconfiguring generator power supplies on Enterprise trains. The estimated costs at this time range from £1m-£3m. When final designs and costs are available a business case will be prepared to assess each option."

I'd love to know how them figures were derived.

Victor

lord lucan wrote: »

I'd love to know how them figures were derived.

I can only assume it includes the cost of the original vehicles that are being converted.

Jonathan

Why was HEP considered advantageous in the first place?

Surely they would have realised it would cost more in fuel costs to be running the Loco all the time rather than hauling the EGV?

Vic_08

Jonathan wrote: »

Why was HEP considered advantageous in the first place?

Surely they would have realised it would cost more in fuel costs to be running the Loco all the time rather than hauling the EGV?

Fuel costs are not a particular issue, the generator vans would be burning fuel to power the coaches and the locos are generally left idling between duties.

HEP from diesel-electric locos is a common practice all over the world. The problem IE/NIR have is specific to the GM locos combined with the electrical system on the coaches causing mechanical failures.

Red Alert

The Irish trains use 3-phase which is supplied from the generator in the loco. It's a separate machine on the same shaft as the main engine and generator. The problem is that in order to keep the output at the required 50 Hz the engine has to spin at the same speed all the time. Another option might be to use solid-state AC-DC-AC inverters so that the loco could spin at a slower speed depending on the HEP demand.

dowlingm

Vic_08 wrote: »

Fuel costs are not a particular issue, the generator vans would be burning fuel to power the coaches and the locos are generally left idling between duties.

HEP from diesel-electric locos is a common practice all over the world. The problem IE/NIR have is specific to the GM locos combined with the electrical system on the coaches causing mechanical failures.

The IE 201s use the same engine family as the F59PH locomotives operated by GO Transit here in Toronto, but they use a fully separate HEP generator (currently a Caterpillar 533kW 3412DI-TA).

Vic_08

dowlingm wrote: »

The IE 201s use the same engine family as the F59PH locomotives operated by GO Transit here in Toronto, but they use a fully separate HEP generator (currently a Caterpillar 533kW 3412DI-TA).

And the 201 uses a near identical engine to the BR class 67 that uses HEP on very high loading sleeper trains without the same problems.

I've known about this since August but didn't disclose any info as I was told by an insider. I was told then that 5 vans were earmarked for conversion to power the Enterprise sets. The vans had two main purposes on Mk3s. The first one is obviously power generation for the coaches. The second is door control - the guard opened and closed the doors from the EGV on mainline Mk3 sets. The push-pulls have their door controls in the control car and as such required the driver to manage the doors - this also required that door controls were fitted in the locomotive and the only ones so treated were the 121s and 201s. Of course, the extra space in the EGV was handy for parcel and bicycle traffic too.

I believe the original intention with HEP was to do away with the Mk2 and Mk3 gen vans completely, funny how the shoe is now on the other foot. If you look at the HEP controls on a 201 it has Mk2, Mk3 and push-pull settings on it. According to the CAF Mk4 operations manual published internally by IÉ it can also be used to power a Mk4 set in an emergency but it can only produce half the power output of the two generators in the control car.

The idea is insane in practice, the engine constantly revs at the full 900 rpm even when idle (though there is a lower setting at 720 rpm which uses the main traction generator rather than the HEP alternator - this is only available when the locomotive is stopped). Not to mention the fact that HEP related strain almost wrote off 206 after a major fire in 2003. I was also told (by the same source) that GM strongly recommended against installing prime mover operated HEP equipment in the 201s, instead recommending an auxillary engine as is done in the F59PH locos, but IÉ rejected this proposal. The GM/EMD F40PH has a similar HEP system to the 201s but it was suggested on IRN that this loco is probably better capable of handling the strain as it has a 16-cylinder 645 engine rather than the 12-cylinder 710 as in the 201s.

The 22000 ICRs also use HEP but in a different way, the HEP alternator is driven using a gearbox so the engine doesn't need to remain at a constant speed to drive it.

Vic_08

Vic_08 wrote: »

And the 201 uses a near identical engine to the BR class 67 that uses HEP on very high loading sleeper trains without the same problems.

I don't know much about the scene outside of Ireland but I believe the ETH system used by BR is 1000V DC, therefore it wouldn't need to turn the engine at constant (high) revs as there's no need to maintain the 50Hz AC field rate.

Jonathan

Karsini wrote: »

The idea is insane in practice, the engine constantly revs at the full 900 rpm even when idle (though there is a lower setting at 720 rpm which uses the main traction generator rather than the HEP alternator - this is only available when the locomotive is stopped). Not to mention the fact that HEP related strain almost wrote off 206 after a major fire in 2003. I was also told (by the same source) that GM strongly recommended against installing prime mover operated HEP equipment in the 201s, instead recommending an auxillary engine as is done in the F59PH locos, but IÉ rejected this proposal. The GM/EMD F40PH has a similar HEP system to the 201s but it was suggested on IRN that this loco is probably better capable of handling the strain as it has a 16-cylinder 645 engine rather than the 12-cylinder 710 as in the 201s.

This is what I was referring to above. Surely someone should have realised that holding the engine speed constant would have long term effects on engine wear and fuel consumption?

dowlingm

Karsini wrote: »

The GM/EMD F40PH has a similar HEP system to the 201s but it was suggested on IRN that this loco is probably better capable of handling the strain as it has a 16-cylinder 645 engine rather than the 12-cylinder 710 as in the 201s.

Apparently the current rebuild of VIA Rail Canada's F40PH-2s (built 1986-7, project to add 20 years to lifespan) will add a separate HEP generator.

Hungerford

Jonathan wrote: »

This is what I was referring to above. Surely someone should have realised that holding the engine speed constant would have long term effects on engine wear and fuel consumption?

You would have thought so but this is Irish Rail we're talking about. :rolleyes:

Cookie_Monster

Will they be repainted, I presume they will?
One orange carriage in a set of Ent Liv would look a bit wrong