Future of the Intercity 125s

[RobShipway]

The first will never happen, Class 43 Locomotives are Diesel - Electric but there is no control gear for the electric systems, in any way, so you'd pretty much be gutting a shell and starting again, by this point, buy a new locomotive that doesn't use DC Machines(!)



No.

Voyagers work in a very different way to most other ED Locomotives, it consists basically of an EMU with a set of Diesel Generators that respond to the demand from the control system, if you have a large enough fleet, fitment of a standard internal set of components, ie. Fitting this to the entire 22x fleet (in combination with the cancellation of the IEP order now that we will have enough electrified lines to displace enough 22x units to run all of the LDPE Diesel requirements in the UK until more electrification can be completed in CP6).

Working the numbers VERY roughly if you were to re-fit all the 220 and 4 car 221 and 222/1 units to become 5 car EDMUs with single Panto/Transformer Cars, and all units between 5 and 7 cars in length being stretched out by two cars (there is enough capacity within said transformers), with the life extension of HSTs to run the Cornish services until electrification is completed within CP6, it would be a sufficently large order to warrant the conversion of these 22x units in lieu of producing new LDPE/LDHS EDMUs.

This would set the life expiry of the LDHS/LDPE Diesel fleet in the UK to be some 15 years earlier than with the Bi Mode IEP order, meaning that with the current pace of electrification, when coming to the end of CP7 there will potentially be a new solution for self powered units, and if not, only the furthest reaches of LHDS services will require self powered haulage (Diesel / Gas / Fuel Cells / etc.) where a locomotive can be provided to haul off the shelf EMUs (This solution could work now) west of Taunton and Chester, or other examples. Development of such a unit could come from HS2's Classic Compatable stock development with a locomotive provided here, and the additional stock for these routes coming from Cascaded stock from the HSCC pool (or potentially being HSCC operated services, such as Aberdeen via HS2).

Either way, I've Whittier on enough about that now for people to try and pick it to pieces, knock yourselves out, when I'm bored at work later I'll go through the numbers and diagram requirements to prove it to you, but on the back of a fag packet, if we have the 'new' LDHS rolling stock, likely to be a re-formable EMU in what I would personally specify, would come with a Locomotive able to provide "ETS" and have "DVT" functionality with the EMU so it can push or pull from the EMU's cab controls, and make use of auto couplers to minimise coupling time. With EDMU or DEMU stock being used for services with short extensions or where said extensions are time critical, such as attaching at Oxford, and Locomotives would be provided where less so, such as attaching at Taunton or Edinburgh... (ICEC Could make use of nothing but this type of fleet for their services)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


NO NO NO!!!

You can't turn 43s into Electric Locomotives!

But to even do what you suggest above, as I mentioned in my post before you would have have to rebuild each coach within each Voyager set to accept the electrical power. I know this from not on;y details that I have read in Rail and Modern Railways magazines, but also from talking to engineers within Bombardier. This is why the project to electrify teh Voyagers has been quietly dropped.

 

[hwl]

My thoughts
With the CP5 electrification and IEP:
East Coast -all HSTs surplus to requirements.

Great western - most HSTs surplus to requirements but still used on west country routes. (They might want to keep a number for as warm spares as reliability will go down with time). Power door modifications like Chiltern on those that remain???

MML - When new EMU are ordered (project thor style option being dead) they can cover non electrified services with Meridians). Given that there is likely to be more MML electrification in CP6 they might have to do 2 batch EMU order (batch 1 CP5, batch 2 CP6) or go for a short term Chiltern type solution* depending on exact programme timing, franchise change over and ability to get identical units built X years later.
(*Chiltern type solution: Convert HST mk3 to loco hauled and combine with refurbished class 90 and DVT till to the rest of the electrification is done in CP6 electrification is done and they can take delivery of a new fleet of EMUs in one go) Thoughts anyone???
Post CP6 electrification 222 cascaded to West country services if electrification hasn't reached any further to retire the last Greatwestern HSTs.

I don't think the industry has thought through the rolling stock implications of the CP5 electrification plan in full yet.

I can see Chiltern possibly being interested in some mk3 hst coaches being "silver set" converted and run with refurbished 90s if they start electrifying more in CP6 as they won't want to pick up a new electric fleet piece meal like they ended up doing with the DMU orders over the years?

XC many possibilities if virgin win the new west coast franchise with a similar bid to the last, they could get the surplus voyagers from west coast and retire all the HSTs then worry about a new electric or bi-mode stock order when more electrification is done in CP6?

Realistically all I can see is several sets of coaches only that are surplus to requirements being converted to LCHS spec to delay new rolling stock orders on electrification i.e. avoid more bi-mode or smaller (more expensive) orders in several batches. I can't see any non preserved new uses for HST sets that become surplus to requirements shortly.

 

[Goatboy]

Considering the fact that Southampton-Reading-Birmingham will be electrified

Is that absolutely certain? It seems like a bit of a pointless move to electrify south of Reading - the main benefit would be for freight but have the frieght operators not said they don't have any or are considering ordering any electric locos to utilise said route? I'm sure 'Freight operators slam electrification plans for Southampton' was a headline in RAIL a few weeks back.

 

[Yew]

Which doesn't change the fact that HSTs won't be replacing Voyagers wholesale on XC.

Personally I can see a couple of them being sent over to allow a few Voyagers to be released for doubling up existing services but I can't see a couple of dozen or more being sent over.

Ive got to agree with you there, but also think it is a shame, some extra Supervoyagers could be useful on WC, and if some HST's where formed as currently, and some in shorter class 225 'Challanger' sets, it would allow a good compromise between increased capacity, and maintaining speed on other routes.

If we arent getting pantograph cars for voyagers, then we need to give something to XC, and if it is not HST's then I dont know what

 

[Rich McLean]

Ive got to agree with you there, but also think it is a shame, some extra Supervoyagers could be useful on WC, and if some HST's where formed as currently, and some in shorter class 225 'Challanger' sets, it would allow a good compromise between increased capacity, and maintaining speed on other routes.

If we arent getting pantograph cars for voyagers, then we need to give something to XC, and if it is not HST's then I dont know what

Have a funny feeling, in order to get the best out of the factory, they will order IEP for XC, once GW and East Coast has been done

 

[JamesRowden]

Is that absolutely certain? It seems like a bit of a pointless move to electrify south of Reading - the main benefit would be for freight but have the frieght operators not said they don't have any or are considering ordering any electric locos to utilise said route? I'm sure 'Freight operators slam electrification plans for Southampton' was a headline in RAIL a few weeks back.

After reading the relavant documents I have seen that the electrification plans published in July are options. It being in the options for the CP5 HLOS means that:

the Department found the scheme to be a viable solution and this solution is likely to be amongst those considered by the rail industry in deciding the best and most efficient way to deliver the outputs specified.

The purpose of the 'Electric spine' is:

The Electric Spine
34.The Secretary of State wishes the industry to develop and deliver within CP5 the major rail electrification and capability enhancement referred to as the ‘Electric Spine’, in order to increase regional and national connectivity and support economic development by creating a high-capability 25kV electrified passenger and freight route from the South Coast via Oxford and the Midlands to South Yorkshire.

35.The routes to be electrified as part of the Electric Spine are:
Southampton Port – Basingstoke (conversion from 750 dc);
Basingstoke – Reading;
Oxford – Leamington – Coventry;
Coventry – Nuneaton;
Oxford – Bletchley – Bedford (East West Rail core route);
Bedford – Nottingham and Derby, and Derby – Sheffield (Midland Main Line); and
Kettering – Corby

36. The work should include gauge clearance for large containers and appropriate electrified links to adjacent electrified routes, depots and freight facilities. Opportunities should be pursued to speed journeys through efficient enhancements in conjunction with the improvements, notably between Bedford and Corby, and at Derby. The Secretary of State wishes to see sufficient capacity to provide for forecast freight flows crossing the Electric Spine at Leicester. The industry is to undertake further development work to confirm the full scope and requirements for the delivery of this scheme, which the Secretary of State believes is deliverable within the SoFA.

37.The southern end of the Electric Spine entails the conversion of a section of the existing Southern ‘third rail’ (750V DC) electrification system to the more modern and capable ‘overhead’ (25kV AC) system to upgrade its capability. The Secretary of State also wishes the industry to develop a longer-term proposition and business case for the systematic upgrade from DC to AC of the whole Southern network, for consideration for future control periods. As part of this work the industry will wish to treat the conversion work required for Southampton to Basingstoke as a pilot scheme for such a potential modernisation programme, and review plans for renewing or upgrading the DC network to avoid the risk of nugatory expenditure.

38.The Secretary of State wishes the industry to identify the most efficient strategic electrification schemes that may be considered for CP6. This should include freight linkages in South Yorkshire and Derby – Birmingham – Bristol.

This response from Freightliner provides us with the issues with the current plan.

I am writing in response to your recent invitation requesting evidence following the publishing of the recent High Level Output Statement (HLOS) and Statement of Funds Available (SOFA). .......................

The HLOS announcement also includes funding for several key electrification schemes including the ‘Electric spine’, linking the Port of Southampton to the West Coast Mainline. The electrification of one of the key freight corridors is the first stage in a medium to long term strategy that will help in increasing the proportion of electrically hauled freight on the network although to facilitate the next stage of planning must focus on the following freight specific issues:

· Electrification of diversionary routes to ensure that freight operators are able to inject further electric locomotives into their fleet without incurring additional inefficiency by having to maintain numbers of diesel locomotives (which would otherwise be necessary).

· Electrification of terminals and network infrastructure such as sidings, loops and other freight yards.

· Addressing the issue concerning the higher costs of electric traction vs diesel (currently one of the reasons which prohibit its greater use).

· Consideration of further routes for electrification – this could then lead to more electric locomotives being purchased if the commercial business case can be made.

 

[LE Greys]

This response from Freightliner provides us with the issues with the current plan.

· Electrification of diversionary routes to ensure that freight operators are able to inject further electric locomotives into their fleet without incurring additional inefficiency by having to maintain numbers of diesel locomotives (which would otherwise be necessary).

· Electrification of terminals and network infrastructure such as sidings, loops and other freight yards.

· Addressing the issue concerning the higher costs of electric traction vs diesel (currently one of the reasons which prohibit its greater use).

· Consideration of further routes for electrification – this could then lead to more electric locomotives being purchased if the commercial business case can be made.

Sounds like Freightliner might need to invest in a UK-sized version of the TRAXX 187, or possibly the Pesa Gama Marathon. Exactly what I've been banging on about for years, a freight electro-diesel.

 

[aylesbury]

No evidence of this yet, and plenty of other deserving things to take up resources in CP6 (like the gaps in the Cross Country network).

Not sure what you mean about "discerning" passengers"?

I meant that they prefer a better quality service and a higher quality of rolling stock.Chiltern are adding coaches to to the hauled stock because of increasing patronage,the regular 158 services are also well filled and an excellent alternative to a Pendolino to Euston.

 

[tbtc]

I meant that they prefer a better quality service and a higher quality of rolling stock.Chiltern are adding coaches to to the hauled stock because of increasing patronage,the regular 158 services are also well filled and an excellent alternative to a Pendolino to Euston.

Some people will prefer the cheapest option, which is generally LM.

Most people will prefer the frequent faster option, which is Virgin.

There's a gap between the two for Chiltern, sure, but certainly a niche market in comparison.

 

[Photohunter71]

Pesa Gama Marathon? It's a hideaous locomotive! Traxx,Prima 2 and Vectron are pretty smart locos,but that PGM is hideous!

 

[RAGNARØKR]

To judge by the comments, it looks as if the best option for the trailers would be to fit power doors and retention toilets and standardise the electrical systems. They could then be made up into semi permanent rakes with the vehicles at the outer ends having standard drawgear for loco haulage. The power cars might be de-powered and become driving van trailers.

Since they are good till at least 2035, that raises the question that must not be asked.

 

[Wolfie]

I meant that they prefer a better quality service and a higher quality of rolling stock.Chiltern are adding coaches to to the hauled stock because of increasing patronage,the regular 158 services are also well filled and an excellent alternative to a Pendolino to Euston.

my bold and italics

I assume this is a typo - 168 (or 165) surely.....

I do agree with the sentiment though....

 

[tbtc]

There are two very different questions here:

* - The longevity of HSTs (lets face it, if you treat any trains like Triggers Broom then they can go on forever, subject to safety case)

* - What can HSTs be used on in ten years time? This is the harder question - with electrification of most main lines by then, there won't be much 125mph running away from the wires, so what need will there be for 125 mph diesel trains? Especially since we'll have 180/220/221/222s capable of doing such jobs as well as bi-mode IEP by then.

People answering the OP's question soly on the first of the two points I've raised haven't given a good enough answer to the second point. The only places I can suggest are the Chiltern line to Birmingham and the Edinburgh/ Glasgow - Inverness/ Aberdeen FSR routes - none of which require 125mph trains, but at least could employ enough six coach HSTs to make it worthwhile. Other than that...

 

[HSTEd]

About the only thing I can think of is occasional use for football charters and the like.... but they don't really exist in the privatised railway.

 

[sprinterguy]

About the only thing I can think of is occasional use for football charters and the like.... but they don't really exist in the privatised railway.

Certainly, Cotswold Rail's brief flirtation with providing an HST set for the spot-hire and railtour market proved to be very short-lived.

 

[warriorwarlord]

Call me cynical, misguided if you wish, but why all this talk of IEP like your definately going to see one as early as 2017? until I start seeing wires beyond airport junction I think we have to take the future of HST's seriously. Even Roger Ford thinks we could see them operating for quite some time, and he tends to know what he's talking about.

 

[Royston Vasey]

To judge by the comments, it looks as if the best option for the trailers would be to fit power doors and retention toilets and standardise the electrical systems. They could then be made up into semi permanent rakes with the vehicles at the outer ends having standard drawgear for loco haulage. The power cars might be de-powered and become driving van trailers.

Since they are good till at least 2035, that raises the question that must not be asked.

You'd need to get the Chinese to reverse engineer and manufacture a load of bogies as well as everything you state; there is an acute shortage. You're talking about using the shell of a 40 year old coach and replacing everything else. It makes no sense. Not to mention that Mk IIIs have reasonable crash resistance but they are nowhere near modern standards.

Reengineering/rebuilding on this scale is madness on anything more than the small scale Chiltern have trialled! The difference there is that DBS owned some serviceable, fully depreciated Mk III coaches which were suitable for upgrade for a few years of added life.

Or you can buy new coaches for roughly the same price which will have a further 40 years life in them!

ROSCOs are looking at long term revenue earning potential and doing what you suggest will not secure as much long term revenue. Loco haulage is largely a thing of the past, units are far more fungible, and investment in new multiple units have a better chance of securing long term earning.

Refurbishing Mk IIIs will not happen on a large scale, and I'd suggest even investment in new unpowered coaching stock will not happen. It is simple economics over enthusiasts' fantasy.

 

[Wath Yard]

Electrification is just about the only thing on the railway that is going to plan - franchising and procurement being a real mess. Roger Ford does know what he is talking about but he also has a real dislike for Hitachi and IEP and a passion for HSTs, so some of his comments may be swayed by his personal preferences, just as his rather suspect comparisions between IEP and Pendolinos are.

 

[tbtc]

Electrification is just about the only thing on the railway that is going to plan

True - by the end of the decade we'll have hundreds of miles of newly electrified track (but no new EMUs to run on them, given the current problems!)

 

[Lewisham2221]

True - by the end of the decade we'll have hundreds of miles of newly electrified track (but no new EMUs to run on them, given the current problems!)

Problem sorted then, we can just keep running HST's under the wires.

 

[Kettledrum]

I cannot see them running on Chiltern as this line will be electrified in the future due to the increased patronage by discerning passengers.

As a regular, "discerning passenger" with X Country, the HST journeys are by the far the most pleasureable and comfortable. Despite their age, the coachers are still vastly superior in terms of passenger comfort to anything else. I'm sure the discerning passengers on Chiltern would appreciate them too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's a good point actually. And I imagine putting Manchester - Bournemouth over to EMU operation would release for more Voyagers than just sending a couple of HSTs would. So in summation, I think it's unlikely at best that we'll see XC gaining more HSTs.

Why not more HSTs for the XC route from the North East to Bristol?

 

[ainsworth74]

Why not more HSTs for the XC route from the North East to Bristol?

Because their acceleration is poorer than Voyagers meaning that they need specific paths to be created for them (I believe this to be the case anyway), HSTs are old and they will be retired in the not to distant future (people need to accept this) so why bring back stock that was replaced only to for it to be replaced, again, a few years later and most importantly it's more logical to use Voyagers that could be released from the Manchester - Bournemouth electrification. Otherwise what do you do with the spare Voyagers if you don't use them to double up more services on the SW-NE corridor (assuming common sense breaks out and we get EMUs on this route)?

 

[David Goddard]

OK, for my two penneth, I would retain the HST fleet to cover the following:

EC Kings Cross - Aberdeen (bi-hourly) & Inverness (2pd)
GW Paddington - Penzance (hourly) & Paignton (bi-hourly)
XC Edinburgh - Plymouth (hourly) with extensions to Aberdeen & Penzance as appropriate
GW and XC to also cover Summer Saturday services to Newquay as present

All sets to be 2+8 or better, with restaurant car providing full meal service appropriate to the time of day.
This would total in the region of sixty or so sets (rough estimate).
Any remaining sets would then be available for use in charters, footex etc

My ideas only- yeah it would never happen but just what i would do.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

You'd need to get the Chinese to reverse engineer and manufacture a load of bogies as well as everything you state; there is an acute shortage. You're talking about using the shell of a 40 year old coach and replacing everything else. It makes no sense. Not to mention that Mk IIIs have reasonable crash resistance but they are nowhere near modern standards.

Reengineering/rebuilding on this scale is madness on anything more than the small scale Chiltern have trialled! The difference there is that DBS owned some serviceable, fully depreciated Mk III coaches which were suitable for upgrade for a few years of added life.

Or you can buy new coaches for roughly the same price which will have a further 40 years life in them!

ROSCOs are looking at long term revenue earning potential and doing what you suggest will not secure as much long term revenue. Loco haulage is largely a thing of the past, units are far more fungible, and investment in new multiple units have a better chance of securing long term earning.

Refurbishing Mk IIIs will not happen on a large scale, and I'd suggest even investment in new unpowered coaching stock will not happen. It is simple economics over enthusiasts' fantasy.

Personally I don't like the mark 3 stock, don't live in the UK, travel in the vehicles just a few times a year and don't care what happens to them. But they are a resource and the IMechE seminar reported them to be servicable to around 2035. Even if nothing more than the bodyshells are retained, that is an expensive component and as a general principle it is good economics to get the full life out of expensive capital equipment.

It would be surprising if a standard modern design of bogie could not be fitted or if it could not, then something simpler than the original BT10. The Wessex Electrics do not have BT10 bogies but a simpler type with rubber primary suspension.

As regards loco haulage, the tendency is towards self-powered unit trains but the UK seems to have gone furthest down that road, making it out of line with nearly everywhere else. If there are serviceable hauled vehicles in the fleet then it is not good economics to scrap them prematurely. Loco haulage is one way of getting the full life out of them. Another is to convert them into EMUs or use them as trailers in EMU sets. Such conversions were the norm until quite recently.

 

[ainsworth74]

Another is to convert them into EMUs or use them as trailers in EMU sets. Such conversions were the norm until quite recently.

Then again MUs (and locos for that matter) are far more complex than they once were. The 1st Gen DMUs were in many cases little more than hauled stock with engines, similarly with the Slammers. Inserting a Mk3 into a 377 strikes me as being a rather more complex operation.

Though I'd be interested in knowing what examples you were thinking of with the above as I can't think of any of the top of my head (and at 00:45 ).

 

[HSTEd]

The last stock I know of to have been built with hauled stock as part of the formation would probably be the initial build of 4REPs with ex-hauled restaurant vehicles (TRB and TBFK) in them.

The difficulty with building Mark 3s into EMUs is the question of how many new vehicles would have to be built to fit the traction equipment to the formation.
Could you fit, for instance, the traction equipment neccesary to propel 4 Mark 3s into one 23m vehicle (if you powered all four axles Shinkansen style maybe.... as I understand it the pantograph and transformer vehicles of some Shinkansen are powered)?

EDIT:

If you went for real BR style garden shed engineering you might be able to fit the compressors and other small bits of equipment to the Mark 3s by fitting them in the space that would normally contain the motor generator set on loco hauled vehicles, since presumably the hotel load coudl be provided in three phase by your traction package as its output is trivial compared to traction outputs.

 

[Wath Yard]

But they are a resource and the IMechE seminar reported them to be servicable to around 2035. Even if nothing more than the bodyshells are retained, that is an expensive component and as a general principle it is good economics to get the full life out of expensive capital equipment.

You haven't even managed to understand your own argument. The article states they could be life extended, if a lot of money was spent on them. That money may have represented value for money if they were to be retained on InterCity services, but they're not. The article doesn't say they should have vast sums spent on them just for the sake of it and just because it is possible.

 

[dubscottie]

Not to mention that Mk IIIs have reasonable crash resistance but they are nowhere near modern standards.

It is unfortunate that we will need to see a major accident (and potential deaths) to prove how unsafe "modern designs" are..

Remember Adtranz/bombardier, by there own admission, say that a Turbostar is held together by IIRC 6 (6!!) bolts per body panel..

Now unless they have got some alien superdupper bolts out of Area 51 then I would think a Mk 3 would be much safer.. Unless its a FGW one as they removed the central partitions which are there for a reason.. ie Strength!

(thats why FGW ones bend in collisions!)

 

[ainsworth74]

It is unfortunate that we will need to see a major accident (and again potential deaths) to prove how unsafe "modern designs" are..

Do you actually have any facts to back up your claim that modern designs are unsafe compared wit the vehicles they replaced (bearing in mind the much more stringent safety standards applied to modern vehicles compared to earlier vehicles)? Because right now I'm far from persuaded that I'm safer in a Mk3 than a 390 or that I'm safer in a 4CIG than a 450.

 

[dubscottie]

Do you actually have any facts to back up your claim that modern designs are unsafe compared wit the vehicles they replaced (bearing in mind the much more stringent safety standards applied to modern vehicles compared to earlier vehicles)? Because right now I'm far from persuaded that I'm safer in a Mk3 than a 390 or that I'm safer in a 4CIG than a 450.

Modern vs Old

Ladbroke Grove.. Class 165 (Welded aluminium extrusions that came apart.. Mk3's that didn't and central partitions still in place at that point)

And now FGW's Mk 3's

Colwich.. Head on crash involving Mk 1,2 and 3 coaches..No deaths (passengers)

Now compare that to Ufton Nervet. Just a car and a HST with the central partitions removed from the coaches and look at the pictures.. some folded in half.. Deaths we all know about.

What I am trying to say is that, the way SOME modern trains are built, you would be better off in a Mk 3 or a papermache train! A 170/375/377 etc will split open.

I will look for the RAIL article that had the "6 bolt" thing also!