Greater Anglia InterCity Service

[RobShipway]

Any new trains should be 125-140mph capable for future proofing (line upgrades, cascades etc) even if they are re-geared for 100-110mph running initially.

What class of train is guaranteed never to move about in the future? Very few I'd expect.

But I would also add to that that the trains should be capable to have tilt enabled as well, which is why I stated Class 395/IEC or Baby Pendolino type train in my post last night.

I know some people asked why have a 125 - 140mph train on the GEML, well in that case why has there been for many years the IC125 trains on the Midland Mainline which I believe up until recently had a 110mph limit. It is indeed as Jon Morris states in his post above future proofing for when improvements in speed and performance can be made to the line.

 

[jon0844]

A modern EMU is likely to operate for 40, 50 or even 60 years perhaps? While some trains will be fixed to their routes, I do believe many will be cascaded as time goes on - so future proofing, or at least the option to upgrade the train, is important if they might be introduced in 2020 and last until 2080!

For saving money, perhaps don't get a train that can do 140mph and limit it - but make it a requirement of the procurement that any train can be modified with new engines/gearing later on. Even if Bombardier shy away from such contracts, there must be other rail companies that would be keen to do that sort of work.

There's no reason the same couldn't be the case for tilt, if it's likely that much of the existing network could be upgraded in the next 50 years for tilt operation. If it's clear that we're intending on a new network of HS routes, perhaps that wouldn't be required.

 

[Surreyman]

A modern EMU is likely to operate for 40, 50 or even 60 years perhaps? While some trains will be fixed to their routes, I do believe many will be cascaded as time goes on - so future proofing, or at least the option to upgrade the train, is important if they might be introduced in 2020 and last until 2080!

For saving money, perhaps don't get a train that can do 140mph and limit it - but make it a requirement of the procurement that any train can be modified with new engines/gearing later on. Even if Bombardier shy away from such contracts, there must be other rail companies that would be keen to do that sort of work.

There's no reason the same couldn't be the case for tilt, if it's likely that much of the existing network could be upgraded in the next 50 years for tilt operation. If it's clear that we're intending on a new network of HS routes, perhaps that wouldn't be required.

Order a nice batch of AC Class 444 with 110mph top speed.
Maybe, that's only a maybe, with a buffet counter
In the unlikely event that the Great Eastern route is ever upgraded, they can be cascaded elsewhere.

 

[colchesterken]

I hope I do not get barred fro repeat postings. but I feel strongly the Witham loops should be used for all stopping trains Then faster trains could overtake if the timetable was regigged. they could then bring back fast Clactons
It works on chiltern in the summer I was going to West Ruslip ( limit of OAP all zones )
to look at the fast trains. My all stations local stopped in one of the stations en route (cannot remember which ) we were there for about 3 mins and two fasts overtook on the central road, If chiltern can do it why not G A

 

[RobShipway]

Order a nice batch of AC Class 444 with 110mph top speed.
Maybe, that's only a maybe, with a buffet counter
In the unlikely event that the Great Eastern route is ever upgraded, they can be cascaded elsewhere.

As Jon has pointed out you need to be looking to the future when ordering new stock, so if an AC class 444 was ordered it would need to be such that the speed can be increased beyond 110mph as otherwise you are looking at paying millions for a train that would only last 5 - 10 years, whereas you should be looking at what type of train could be on the route for a good 20 - 60 years in the same way that the IC125 trains have ploughed along the GWML since 1976 and will probably go on for another 10 to 20 years even when IEC trains are brought on to the line when it is electrified.

 

[jon0844]

To add to this, I also think train interiors should be more modular so you can easily modify them in future years. Actually, I presume that most train builders probably are doing this, so to change the seats, add in a new toilet, or add a bar, or remove something isn't a major deal, or shouldn't be.

 

[Surreyman]

As Jon has pointed out you need to be looking to the future when ordering new stock, so if an AC class 444 was ordered it would need to be such that the speed can be increased beyond 110mph as otherwise you are looking at paying millions for a train that would only last 5 - 10 years, whereas you should be looking at what type of train could be on the route for a good 20 - 60 years in the same way that the IC125 trains have ploughed along the GWML since 1976 and will probably go on for another 10 to 20 years even when IEC trains are brought on to the line when it is electrified.

Just can't see the Great Eastern line speed being upgraded anytime soon, what is the need? There are many lines elsewhere which have far greater priorities in terms of speed upgrades.

 

[junglejames]

Cant see 90s getting replaced anytime soon. Very good locos, which are showing no signs of needing to be retired. Why waste money building brand new locos for next to no reason.

 

[jon0844]

If the locos are fine, keep them. The passenger just want a nice modern interior on the carriages, so give them new seats, power doors, Wi-Fi, new lighting, tidier toilets etc.

Then they'll be just fine for many more years.

But if new stock is purchased, let's just make sure we consider the importance of looking to where we might be in 40-50 years time. Not an easy task by any means, but let's assume that there might be some huge upgrade work that will allow higher speeds anyway.

 

[HSTEd]

45 Class 379s, assuming the production line is still open, gives Greater Anglia a more uniform fleet and allows greater flexibility, since that would theoretically allow them to run them as 12 car formations all the time, which they probably wouldn't when they could run an 8 car and keep the 4 other cars for something else.

And if at some point 110mph or 125mph stock is actually required, they can be easily used anywhere on GA, allowing the new IC stock to be a replacement for ancient EMUs instead of modern units.

EDIT: And if you really want, I am sure you could get a small refreshment counter thing fitted like they have on the ex Hull Trains turbostars.

 

[captainbigun]

Cant see 90s getting replaced anytime soon. Very good locos, which are showing no signs of needing to be retired. Why waste money building brand new locos for next to no reason.

It is actively being looked at.

 

[The Ham]

As Jon has pointed out you need to be looking to the future when ordering new stock, so if an AC class 444 was ordered it would need to be such that the speed can be increased beyond 110mph as otherwise you are looking at paying millions for a train that would only last 5 - 10 years, whereas you should be looking at what type of train could be on the route for a good 20 - 60 years in the same way that the IC125 trains have ploughed along the GWML since 1976 and will probably go on for another 10 to 20 years even when IEC trains are brought on to the line when it is electrified.

I often think that line speeds are set at the max speed for the stock that run on it unless there is a reason for it to be lower. This then means that when new stock is ordered the order is matched to the line speed.

Whilst if the stock was able to go faster then the line speeds might be checked to see what was needed to improve the line speed and if it wasn't too costly could be done.

The SWML is fairly straight with no level crossing and if it wasn't limited by 3rd rail, the line speed of it is likely to be higher than the 100mph which it is limited to.

 

[oliMw]

I think that Greater Anglia should not get full intercity stock but an EMU (as previously said). Someting like the Class 350, Capable of 110MPH and with 8 Cars per set and intercity style seating. this would then leave space for a full 2 Car first class, Café Bar and standard class and also maybe 3 or 4 4 Car Class 350s to allow 12 Car Running at peek times for two trains, getting rid of the Class 321 at 17:02 LTS - NRW and Return.

 

[D365]

45 Class 379s, assuming the production line is still open, gives Greater Anglia a more uniform fleet and allows greater flexibility, since that would theoretically allow them to run them as 12 car formations all the time, which they probably wouldn't when they could run an 8 car and keep the 4 other cars for something else.

And if at some point 110mph or 125mph stock is actually required, they can be easily used anywhere on GA, allowing the new IC stock to be a replacement for ancient EMUs instead of modern units.

EDIT: And if you really want, I am sure you could get a small refreshment counter thing fitted like they have on the ex Hull Trains turbostars.

I'm sure that 379s could be upgraded/built for 110mph, considering that 350/1s are being upgraded. Would be good for keeping the fleet uniform and gradually replacing older stock.

 

[TheWalrus]

I travelled on the first class portion of one of these a few months back, Ipswich-London. I must admit (living in the Chilterns and used to Chiltern Rail, plus FGW / ICWC, XC & SWT as my main travel routes), I was taken aback at the very dated/slightly collapsing feel of the coaches. It felt like being transported back to the 80s, not in a nice way, but in a "how dirty is this cushion" way - reminding me of those grim slam door NSEs I used to commute on so many years ago.

So, whilst the above is to be expected given the age and lack of update, yes, they definately need a refurb. The FGW interiors seem great to me, very comfortable, although I prefer the high backed chair sets as it cuts down noise & improves privacy, especially from groups sitting at tables (people seem to make a lot more noise in a foursome, than split into two pairs, which makes sense, but is still annoying).

I have to admit though, being a semi-regular user of Mk3s (FGW), I am not that much of a fan of it, they seem very bouncy and noisy (wires clanging, lots of groaning/squeaking and so on) compared to modern MU coaches (22X/390/444) - although I haven't actually been on Chiltern's modernised ones (all 165/168s from my local station).

The GA fleet is quite large, wiki says 150 vehicles. I'd have thought it best to hang on to these until anything is ever done to upgrade the line before investing in new stock. 125mph+ capable IEP seems a bit of a waste. I'd support a modern version of the 444, they are lovely trains to be on.

What are they planning to equip TPE with once Liverpool-Leeds is electrified ?

So a 444 with a panto? A 344!

 

[aylesbury]

Its all down to money and whatever franchise conditions apply,this route is not a high priority one.The services are dominated by surburban or outer surburban ,this all means that inter city services are restricted to slower speeds and pathing constrictions.Commuters who pay the lions share of the fares would not take kindly to inter city units taking priority over their much needed trains.A new outer surburban/express unit could be the answer,based on a 444 .With a high quality interior this could be the answer ,compartments in one vehicle,catering,and a comfortable standard class.The design of such units is a prioriy as there are quite a few routes that such a unit could run on .Services to Norwich will eventualy become an add on to L/ Pool St Ipswich.Doubtless many councillors will be up in arms if this were to be the solution to the problems indemic on this route ,but none of this could happen unless investment takes place ,new track,easment of curves,rebuilding of stations,adding new sections of track in places to provide extra capacity.The route has not really changed from BR days and will have to have a great deal of money spent on it just to maintain the status quo.

 

[AndyLandy]

I often think that line speeds are set at the max speed for the stock that run on it unless there is a reason for it to be lower. This then means that when new stock is ordered the order is matched to the line speed.

Whilst if the stock was able to go faster then the line speeds might be checked to see what was needed to improve the line speed and if it wasn't too costly could be done.

The SWML is fairly straight with no level crossing and if it wasn't limited by 3rd rail, the line speed of it is likely to be higher than the 100mph which it is limited to.

There's certainly some truth to that. In fact, I believe the GEML is still largely a 100mph railway. It's not that long ago that it was operated by 100mph Class 86s hauling Mk2 stock.

As I see it, the most appropriate trains for the service would be an AC variant on the 444 (or similar offering from another platform). Decent acceleration, designed for 100mph running, with the possibility of squeezing 110mph operation out of them.

If you were serious about increasing line speeds, you could do a lot worse than put electric IEP on the ECML and cascade the IC225 sets to GA. If you have 125mph-capable stock, you might start seeing line improvements to take advantage of it. That said though, I personally suspect the 91s will see out their whole life on the ECML.

 

[junglejames]

It is actively being looked at.

Somebody needs there head tested then. Nothing wrong with them at all. Reliable, good acceleration. Plenty of reserve there should you want to extend the trains (if thats even possible with platform lengths).
Yes you could always make something better, but you dont need anything better. Perfectly suited to what they do.

 

[captainbigun]

Somebody needs there head tested then. Nothing wrong with them at all. Reliable, good acceleration. Plenty of reserve there should you want to extend the trains (if thats even possible with platform lengths).
Yes you could always make something better, but you dont need anything better. Perfectly suited to what they do.

I'm not sure the ROSCO sees it that way. No regen, obsolete technology. Same issues that also impact the 91s.

They are reliable now but it's cost a fortune in time and money to get them to that position. The cost of level 5 is only going up and that will impact affordability.

 

[junglejames]

I'm not sure the ROSCO sees it that way. No regen, obsolete technology. Same issues that also impact the 91s.

They are reliable now but it's cost a fortune in time and money to get them to that position. The cost of level 5 is only going up and that will impact affordability.

I hope they are right. Spending so much to get them in the state they are now (how much of that was down to Virgin?), only to think about getting rid of them.

Technology wise, everything is obsolete after a few years, but you cant go replacing everything after a handful of years. Look at 86s, but still going strong for FL. Look at the 47s, and the 37s.
Is regen worth it? Will it cover the costs of purchasing brand new locos? Brand new locos that will themselves be obsolete in 5yrs time.
Not saying you are wrong. Far from it. Just wondering how necessary it is?
Like all this talk of replacing 91s. Again seems a very daft idea.

 

[johnnyp_360]

Just out of curiosity, were the GA mark 3s built with the class 90 haulage in mind or were they originally HST stock? I ask because, the class 90s appear were built 1987-90 and the mark 3 were 1975-88 (according to wikipedia).

 

[dk1]

Just out of curiosity, were the GA mark 3s built with the class 90 haulage in mind or were they originally HST stock? I ask because, the class 90s appear were built 1987-90 and the mark 3 were 1975-88 (according to wikipedia).

They where class 81-87 hauled on the WCML.

 

[johnnyp_360]

I see. Thanks. We're the class 90s built for hauling mk 3s in mind or where they built for Prather duties?

 

[dk1]

Originally where going to be 87/2s until classified class 90. Where built as a general user loco as far as i know with a top speed of 110 for the crack West Coast duties. Was quite suprising that so few where allocated to INTERCITY work.

 

[johnnyp_360]

Thanks for explaining. It looks like GA could do with another one on the Norwich run to get rid of that 32x really. Never fun when that turns up :/

 

[LE Greys]

There's certainly some truth to that. In fact, I believe the GEML is still largely a 100mph railway. It's not that long ago that it was operated by 100mph Class 86s hauling Mk2 stock.

As I see it, the most appropriate trains for the service would be an AC variant on the 444 (or similar offering from another platform). Decent acceleration, designed for 100mph running, with the possibility of squeezing 110mph operation out of them.

If you were serious about increasing line speeds, you could do a lot worse than put electric IEP on the ECML and cascade the IC225 sets to GA. If you have 125mph-capable stock, you might start seeing line improvements to take advantage of it. That said though, I personally suspect the 91s will see out their whole life on the ECML.

Isn't 110 going to happen shortly, presumably with the aim of delivering a 90-minute schedule with an even-interval service? The best chance of 125 (about as high as you'll get) is with quadrupling between Shenfield and Colchester. Build the new lines for 125, mostly south of the old ones (space permitting). Chelmsford is a bit of a problem, though. However, the main advantage would be separating the Freightliners from fast passenger traffic.

 

[captainbigun]

Originally where going to be 87/2s until classified class 90. Where built as a general user loco as far as i know with a top speed of 110 for the crack West Coast duties. Was quite suprising that so few where allocated to INTERCITY work.

Take a walk through an 87 and then through a 90. Bogies the same, body similar aside from that very different. Even compared to 87101. 90 built to a price (note no corridor windows!), 87 not so.

The 90s were built to replace the roarers, the fleet was never going to be IC en masse. The 86/2s and 87s were really dedicated passenger machines, the 90s a bit more flexible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Isn't 110 going to happen shortly, presumably with the aim of delivering a 90-minute schedule with an even-interval service? The best chance of 125 (about as high as you'll get) is with quadrupling between Shenfield and Colchester. Build the new lines for 125, mostly south of the old ones (space permitting). Chelmsford is a bit of a problem, though. However, the main advantage would be separating the Freightliners from fast passenger traffic.

I don't think you'll be seeing 110mph operation or 90min schedules any time soon!

Once the chord is built at Ipswich there will be more room for sending FLs cross country. However off peak capacity is less of an issue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They where class 81-87 hauled on the WCML.

Strictly speaking 86/87 only, though clearly there were some exceptions. The aircon stock was barred from being supplied from a roarer. The exact reason escapes me buts its do to the earth return arrangement on the roarers.

 

[Bald Rick]

Originally where going to be 87/2s until classified class 90. Where built as a general user loco as far as i know with a top speed of 110 for the crack West Coast duties. Was quite suprising that so few where allocated to INTERCITY work.

From memory about 30 were built for general duties on the WCML, 4 for the NLL electrification (which was sponsored as a Freight scheme) and the rest for freight on the newly electrified ECML.

Combined with the DVTs, this enabled withdrawal of all the 81-5s and transfer of 86s to Anglia for the Norwich and Cambridge services when those lines were energised.

 

[LE Greys]

From memory about 30 were built for general duties on the WCML, 4 for the NLL electrification (which was sponsored as a Freight scheme) and the rest for freight on the newly electrified ECML.

Combined with the DVTs, this enabled withdrawal of all the 81-5s and transfer of 86s to Anglia for the Norwich and Cambridge services when those lines were energised.

My earliest Platform 5 book - 2000 - puts it as 15 allocated to IWCA (Virgin), 25 to WEMP/WEMF (EWS ex-RfD) and 10 to DFLC (Freightliner) of which 2 were sub-leased to IWCA.

 

[AndyLandy]

I remember that as the Pendolinos were being introduced, Virgin West Coast had a fleet of 35 class 87s and 15 class 90s. They handed the 90s back first to reduce fleet operational complexity and allow them to be cascaded to Anglia sooner.