Future of the Intercity 125s

[AndyLandy]

If you can do a little infill (Moorthorpe/ Doncaster - Swinton - Meadowhall - Sheffield, Derby - Birmingham and Bromsgrove - Bristol Parkway) then you'd only need diesels for services to Devon/ Cornwall I guess.

But would any politician want to lose those token longer distance links?

That was pretty much my thoughts on the matter. I'd give up on Aberdeen (ICEC and ScotRail can worry about that), and run an EMU between Edinburgh and Bristol Temple Meads. I'd hand over Penzance-Birmingham to GW to run with HSTs. (and eventually cascaded 22x sets)

Add on order of "baby Pendolini" after the new WCML operator orde... oh, wait, there's a problem with that

Oh, that one's easy. Hand the Birmingham-Glasgow bit back to CrossCountry and run through services again. If you put Crewe-Chester electrification into CP6 as well and loco drag the few remaining Holyhead services, you'd free up the entire Voyager fleet for redistribution elsewhere.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Pacers have lasted much longer than expected or intended and the is no necessity at the moment to set a date by which it will have to be replaced due to the ravages of the years, by the same logic

Nothing unique about HSTs/ Mk3s.

(replaced due to DDA? That's a whole other story)

Everyone sneers at Pacers but they were cheap if not so cheerful and if they had not been available the lines on which they have been running might well have closed.

The preserved railways seem to be able manage to get passengers in wheelchairs on their museum pieces. No doubt there are at least half a dozen solutions, given the right attitude and some ingenuity.

 

[AndyLandy]

Everyone sneers at Pacers but they were cheap if not so cheerful and if they had not been available the lines on which they have been running might well have closed.

Pacers are fairly uncomfortable trains, but there's no denying the truth in what you say. They did fill a niche at the time and seem to be doing well on our railways, despite passenger distaste for the units.

The preserved railways seem to be able manage to get passengers in wheelchairs on their museum pieces. No doubt there are at least half a dozen solutions, given the right attitude and some ingenuity.

I've often wondered what the specifics of the DDA legislation are. Is there a section for railways that says "Thou shalt have power doors" or is it more vague than that?

 

[jopsuk]

The now-relevant document is the EU Technical Standard for Interoperability- Persons of Reduced Mobility. Here's what it has to say

4.2.2.4. Doors
4.2.2.4.1. General
To latch or unlatch a manually operated door, for use by the public, the control device shall be operable by
the palm of the hand exerting a force not exceeding 20 Newtons.
Door controls, whether manual or pushbuttons, shall contrast with the surface on which they are mounted.
If pushbuttons or other remote control devices are provided for operation of doors then each pushbutton or
device shall be operable by a force not greater than 15 Newtons.
If both open and closed pushbuttons are fitted one above the other, the top button shall always be the open
control.

The door handles on HSTs would fail to comply. The regulations don't even seem to give consideration to the idea that you might have to push down a window and lean out to operate the door handle.

Do remember that the majority of "Persons of Reduced mobility" are not in wheelchairs. This is about much much more than just wheelchair access. It's pretty difficult to make the network be accessible for wheelchairs without assistance. Power doors though make it accessible for a huge number of people that have genuine physical problems with the doors on a mark 3 carriage.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The now-relevant document is the EU Technical Standard for Interoperability- Persons of Reduced Mobility. Here's what it has to say

The door handles on HSTs would fail to comply. The regulations don't even seem to give consideration to the idea that you might have to push down a window and lean out to operate the door handle.

Do remember that the majority of "Persons of Reduced mobility" are not in wheelchairs. This is about much much more than just wheelchair access. It's pretty difficult to make the network be accessible for wheelchairs without assistance. Power doors though make it accessible for a huge number of people that have genuine physical problems with the doors on a mark 3 carriage.

The doors on the mark 3 stock are a pain. They originally had internal handles so that people did not open the windows and muck up the workings of the air conditioning system. Then the doors kept flying open so the handles were removed. Then it was found that the problem was continuing so secondary locking was fitted which finally solved the problem. But for some reason nobody got round to fitting inside handles again. Perhaps someone can shed some light on that. So to solve the door problem we are talking about putting back the inside handles and adjusting the strength of the lock springs so you don't need to be muscle man to work the handles.

Just as much to the point with nearly all UK rolling stock is the difficulty of getting on at off it in many situations, due to the difference in height and the gap. The only way to solve this short of rebuilding the system is to fit the gap-bridges which are standard for new stock on the continent. They take about 3 seconds to deploy and retract. They will save that time as people will get on and off more quickly and confidently. A few types of stock have retractable steps which are a big help but there needs to be more consistency with new stock.

 

[AndyLandy]

The now-relevant document is the EU Technical Standard for Interoperability- Persons of Reduced Mobility. Here's what it has to say

The door handles on HSTs would fail to comply. The regulations don't even seem to give consideration to the idea that you might have to push down a window and lean out to operate the door handle.

Do remember that the majority of "Persons of Reduced mobility" are not in wheelchairs. This is about much much more than just wheelchair access. It's pretty difficult to make the network be accessible for wheelchairs without assistance. Power doors though make it accessible for a huge number of people that have genuine physical problems with the doors on a mark 3 carriage.

Thanks for that, it's interesting to see some specifics about what's required. You're quite right of course that the legislation is about far more than wheelchair users. I wonder if our insistence on using the wheelchair symbol to represent the wider concept of disability is largely to blame for people's perception on the matter.

 

[RobShipway]

I do think that if the 125's continue on for another 10 - 20 years that power doors similar to the ones on the coaches on the class 442's are needed, but also the ability for a ramp to came out if required that then allows disabled access to the platform. I say this as you need a ramp for people that are disabled, but are not in a wheel chair such as the elderly that have difficultly in getting down stairs.

The above will be needed as more of the population becomes elderly within the next 10 - 20 years.

 

[sprinterguy]

The doors on the mark 3 stock are a pain. They originally had internal handles so that people did not open the windows and muck up the workings of the air conditioning system. Then the doors kept flying open so the handles were removed. Then it was found that the problem was continuing so secondary locking was fitted which finally solved the problem. But for some reason nobody got round to fitting inside handles again. Perhaps someone can shed some light on that. So to solve the door problem we are talking about putting back the inside handles and adjusting the strength of the lock springs so you don't need to be muscle man to work the handles.

Mark 3 carriages never had internal door handles. The first, air conditioned, mark 2D carriages were originally fitted with internal door handles for the reason that you state, but the doors opened accidentally due to a lack of CDL as you describe, so the handles were first shielded to make them harder to open accidentally and then removed altogether and plated over. The lesson had been learned by the time that the mark 3 carriages were introduced, but they were later retro-fitted with CDL.

See this thread:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=58939

 

[RAGNARØKR]

I do think that if the 125's continue on for another 10 - 20 years that power doors similar to the ones on the coaches on the class 442's are needed, but also the ability for a ramp to came out if required that then allows disabled access to the platform. I say this as you need a ramp for people that are disabled, but are not in a wheel chair such as the elderly that have difficultly in getting down stairs.

The above will be needed as more of the population becomes elderly within the next 10 - 20 years.

 

[tbtc]

Thanks for that, it's interesting to see some specifics about what's required. You're quite right of course that the legislation is about far more than wheelchair users. I wonder if our insistence on using the wheelchair symbol to represent the wider concept of disability is largely to blame for people's perception on the matter.

This is an important point. A lot of conditions are "invisible", and a wheelchair ramp doesn't solve them.

 

[JamesRowden]

After looking at the present Paddington-Plymouth-(Penzance) service I have come up with a service pattern that could replace all of the remaining HSTs (after introduction of IEP) on the line with the 222s that would come from Midland Mainline Electrification.

Present off-peak service:
1tph Paddington-Plymouth-(Penzance[1tp2h]) (Fast) (HST)
1tp2h Paddington-Taunton (Semi-Fast) (HST)

Present peak service:
1tph Paddington-Plymouth-(Penzance[1tp2h]) (Fast) (HST)
1tph Paddinton-(Exeter/Paignton) (Semi-Fast) (HST)

My idea for the service pattern (all day):
1tph Paddington-Exeter (semi-fast) (IEP)
1tph Paddington-Plymouth(Train splits)-Penzance (Fast) (222)

Present Journey Times
Paddington-Penzance (5h05m-5h36m)
Plymouth-Penzance (1h56m-2h00m)

Required Stock (in service at peak)
I think that the average of 24-55 minutes (plus any time saved through automatic doors and greater acceleration [when compared to HSTs] minus time taken to split/join sets at Plymouth) to be spent at a terminus might be just enough to clean the train and maintain robustness of the timetable. This would mean that there would be 12 trains at any time operating this service. The present journey time between Plymouth and Penzance of exactly or just under 2 hours fits splitting trains at Plymouth perfectly. If the 5-car 222s were to be used for all services, the required number would be:

A X B - C X D = 2 X 12 - 1 X 4 = 24 - 4 = 20

A = Number of sets per train Paddington-Plymouth
B = Number of trains on service
C = Number of sets detached at Plymouth per train
D = Number of trains on these services between Plymouth and Penzance

tbtc told us that 20 4-car 222s and 7 9-car 222s would become avaliable. I have looked on wikedia which states that the sets have been altered so that some 4-car sets are now 5 car and the 9-car sets are now all 7-car. Four of the 7-car 222s could be put onto the service connected to a 4-car to account for peak demand between Reading and Paddington. A 5-car set could be partnered with another 5-car set to produce a mixture of 10-car and 11-car services between Paddington and Plymouth.

The length of the services would be:

10-car 8 services
11-car 4 services

(The odd 9 or 12 car service might need to run due to the swapping of sets at Plymouth)

Out of all the 222 sets the following quanties would be in operation if 4 formations were 11-car:

4-car: 4 out of 6
5-car: 12 out of 14
7-car: 4 out of 7

I think that these results show that the HSTs could be replaced by the 222s with there being enough spare sets to account for maintainance/breakdowns. Also the services that I have described should have about 10%-50% more seats (between Paddington and Plymouth) than the present 8 carriage HST sets. Due to being MUs they will also be able to make more efficient use of any short platforms.

 

[Goatboy]

After looking at the present Paddington-Plymouth-(Penzance) service I have come up with a service pattern that could replace all of the remaining HSTs (after introduction of IEP) on the line with the 222s that would come from Midland Mainline Electrification.

Perhaps you could then look at what would be required to replace all the Anglia Mk3 stock with 172's or something, becuase that would be an equally passenger unfriendly service downgrade.

Having quality IC trains between Penzance, Plymouth, Exeter and Paddington is important. HST's currently fit this. At some point in the future, they will not. When this happens they should be replaced with another quality IC train not more Voyager-derived stock. The 22x family wouldn't be half as disliked if they were used on regional services rather than full IC services.

 

[JamesRowden]

Perhaps you could then look at what would be required to replace all the Anglia Mk3 stock with 172's or something, becuase that would be an equally passenger unfriendly service downgrade.

Having quality IC trains between Penzance and Paddington is important. HST's currently fit this. At some point in the future, they will not. When this happens they should be replaced with another quality IC train not more Voyager-derived stock.

222s are intercity stock. I have travelled on both trains and I prefer the EM 222s to the GW HSTs because the EM 222s have automatic doors and accelerate faster. Apart from that I find no difference in travel experience, indentical style seats, same seating pattern (in standard class).

I think you know how stupid your idea of Turbostars on an electrfied intercity service is.

 

[The Ham]

Perhaps you could then look at what would be required to replace all the Anglia Mk3 stock.

As there is currently 15 trains, I would have thought 15 new EMU's.

Depending on loadings either a full length (9 coach IEP, Pendolino or something else) or half length trains (5 coach) which could be joined together on busy routes/services.

 

[AndyLandy]

222s are intercity stock. I have travelled on both trains and I prefer the EM 222s to the GW HSTs because the EM 222s have automatic doors and accelerate faster. Apart from that I find no difference in travel experience, indentical style seats, same seating pattern (in standard class).

Of course, the problem with the Voyagers is that the sets aren't nearly long enough to meet the demand, and that the seats are too cramped. Fundamentally, all that is needed is longer trains with better seating.

If you fixed that, you'd fix the vast majority of objections raised about the Voyager sets.

 

[The Ham]

Of course, the problem with the Voyagers is that the sets aren't nearly long enough to meet the demand, and that the seats are too cramped. Fundamentally, all that is needed is longer trains with better seating.

If you fixed that, you'd fix the vast majority of objections raised about the Voyager sets.

Which is why they'd run doubled up.

 

[Goatboy]

Which is why they'd run doubled up.

With no way of getting from one to the other, which would inevitably result in the sort of silliness we get from XC when they double voyagers, ranging from locking one out of use entirely to having catering only available in one half of the train.

Double units with no through connection are also a right pain for managing the capacity of the train - invariable one unit fills at a faster rate than the other and there is then no way to get between them when you wish to move to the more lightly loaded unit.

As a regular user of the Pad-Penzance route I'd rather they hung onto the HST's until such time as they could replace them properly rather than bodging a solution involving DMU's. It's really very nice to travel long distance without enduring the tedius thrum of the diesel engine at best being a noisy pain and at worst shaking the interior about at stations.

 

[The Ham]

As a regular user of the Pad-Penzance route I'd rather they hung onto the HST's until such time as they could replace them properly rather than bodging a solution involving DMU's.

The problem is that the HST's may life expire before a suitable solution is available and given there will be a load of Meridians freed up from the electrification of the MML, it is not unreasonable to look at reusing existing Intercity stock to replace older trains.

Especially on a route where there is limited growth possibilities (compared to some of the other lines) given the size of the population the line serves.

 

[Kali]

If you remarshalled all the spare 222s as HST-capacity, how many sets would you end up with?

I have nerve damage & can't grip properly, but I can type ok and after some retraining in how I use my hands I can pick things up reasonably safely, so you generally wouldn't know I had a problem - however doorhandles are a real trial. Wouldn't stop me struggling onto a Mk3 in preference to a rattly DMU, mind.

 

[Manchester77]

6 - 7 carriage
17 - 5 carriage
4 - 4 carriage
this is the current set up of EMT class 222
i dont know if possible but could you re form them all into 6 carriage units with possibility for the three extra carriages for bi mode running (cheap answer for MML electric)
(3 extra carriages transformer - pantograph - transforemer)

 

[Xavi]

The problem is that the HST's may life expire before a suitable solution is available and given there will be a load of Meridians freed up from the electrification of the MML, it is not unreasonable to look at reusing existing Intercity stock to replace older trains.

Especially on a route where there is limited growth possibilities (compared to some of the other lines) given the size of the population the line serves.

There's no chance the capacity per train could be lowered from that of current HSTs on the hourly Devon & Cornwall expresses, and that includes the pm period where there's also an hourly semi-fast to Westbury or beyond. At many times of the week it's full and standing to Taunton and often further west.

The populations of those places directly on the route may not be the greatest but the traffic drawn from the large hinterlands is significant. It will almost certainly be electrification from Bristol / Newbury to Exeter before the HSTs finally bow out.

 

[HSTEd]

There's no chance the capacity per train could be lowered from that of current HSTs on the hourly Devon & Cornwall expresses, and that includes the pm period where there's also an hourly semi-fast to Westbury or beyond. At many times of the week it's full and standing to Taunton and often further west.

The populations of those places directly on the route may not be the greatest but the traffic drawn from the large hinterlands is significant. It will almost certainly be electrification from Bristol / Newbury to Exeter before the HSTs finally bow out.

Or more IEPs, if you ran a ten car IEP lashup on the Plymouth service you could go hourly on the Penzance service using only the front set potentially.....

 

[The Ham]

There's no chance the capacity per train could be lowered from that of current HSTs on the hourly Devon & Cornwall expresses, and that includes the pm period where there's also an hourly semi-fast to Westbury or beyond. At many times of the week it's full and standing to Taunton and often further west.

The populations of those places directly on the route may not be the greatest but the traffic drawn from the large hinterlands is significant. It will almost certainly be electrification from Bristol / Newbury to Exeter before the HSTs finally bow out.

The semi fasts to Exeter are due to be run by IEP's (2x 5 coach have 720 seats 90 being first class), which have a higher capacity than the current IC125's (Long distance 487 seats 112 being first class or high capacity 557 seats, 96 being first class). Even allowing for some extra stops they're likely to give the IC125's a run for their money on journey times between London & Exeter.

Also two five coach 222's have 484 seats (100 being first class), which is only 3 seats less than the current long distance IC125's, so there is nowhere like the reduction in seats as it may first appear. If you coupled a 4 and a 7 coach 222 (11 coaches long) then you'd have 1 coach (about 70 seats) more than the IC125's.

In addition, as Reading will no longer cause capacity issues and Crossrail will free paths into Paddington there could be space for extra services. Further reducing overcrowding.

 

[Goatboy]

I thought it was the case that IEP's would not be going via Westbury at all? Are they really going to make it as far down as Exeter?

 

[transmanche]

Perhaps you could then look at what would be required to replace all the Anglia Mk3 stock

That's easy. An AC version of the 444 (or whatever comes along to replace the Desiro).

 

[Goatboy]

Also, whats with the poor level of First Class capacity on an IEP? Seems much lower than an HST - I've often found First to be quite heavily loaded on the way out of Paddington. Presumably they'll manage this by simply withdrawing all the well priced Advance First tickets? Can't see there being sufficient seating without doing that?

 

[jon0844]

Wow, am I right in reading that the latest regulations are for the open button to be ABOVE the close button?

Surely they've all been changing to have open at the bottom in recent years, given a wheelchair user (as we've acknowledged - many people seem to equate disability with wheelchair) would be lower down, or indeed children.

Or perhaps now the idea is that children shouldn't be able to reach them?

Maybe later they'll say we need one button to open/close like a toggle..!

 

[AndyLandy]

Also, whats with the poor level of First Class capacity on an IEP? Seems much lower than an HST - I've often found First to be quite heavily loaded on the way out of Paddington. Presumably they'll manage this by simply withdrawing all the well priced Advance First tickets? Can't see there being sufficient seating without doing that?

It's not a huge difference. It sounds like a 5-car IEP is likely to have one 1st vehicle and 4 standards. Stick two together and you've got 2x 1st vehicles and 8x standard class ones. That seems quite reasonable to me, do you think it needs more than that?

 

[Xavi]

The semi fasts to Exeter are due to be run by IEP's (2x 5 coach have 720 seats 90 being first class), which have a higher capacity than the current IC125's (Long distance 487 seats 112 being first class or high capacity 557 seats, 96 being first class). Even allowing for some extra stops they're likely to give the IC125's a run for their money on journey times between London & Exeter.

Also two five coach 222's have 484 seats (100 being first class), which is only 3 seats less than the current long distance IC125's, so there is nowhere like the reduction in seats as it may first appear. If you coupled a 4 and a 7 coach 222 (11 coaches long) then you'd have 1 coach (about 70 seats) more than the IC125's.

In addition, as Reading will no longer cause capacity issues and Crossrail will free paths into Paddington there could be space for extra services. Further reducing overcrowding.

Reduction in capacity was in reference to the often touted idea of using class 222 displaced from the MML on these services. Simply won't work. Electrify to Exeter and use whatever combination of IEP suits the needs probably will happen and will work providing the diesel part of bi-mode can get over Dainton, Rattery and Hemerdon in a satisfactory manner....

 

[The Ham]

I thought it was the case that IEP's would not be going via Westbury at all? Are they really going to make it as far down as Exeter?

As quoted before:
http://www.transitionmarlborough.org/blogpost40

It is proposed that through services to Exeter will be in two categories –

(i) A fast service between Paddington and Exeter (first stops Reading and Taunton) using the existing HST trains and

ii) A semi-fast service, using new IEP trains (these are bi-mode trains that can run under the wire to Newbury and then diesel thereafter), between Paddington and Exeter (stopping at additional stations such as Newbury, Pewsey and Westbury).

Also, whats with the poor level of First Class capacity on an IEP? Seems much lower than an HST - I've often found First to be quite heavily loaded on the way out of Paddington. Presumably they'll manage this by simply withdrawing all the well priced Advance First tickets? Can't see there being sufficient seating without doing that?

IEP if run as 2x 5 coaches with the DFT seating layouts will have 720 seats 90 being first class compared with Long distance IC125's 487 seats 112 being first class. However whoever wins the franchise can set their own layouts. so they could have 690 seats of which 120 are first class; which is still more seats.