Future of the Intercity 125s

[Goatboy]

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?

It's 22 less seats using the figures above - I've been on numerous HST's out of Paddington where there wasn't 22 spare seats in First Class.

The obvious way round that would be to remove Advance First tickets.

 

[The Ham]

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....

But the 222's used in giving the capacity levels where the ones from MML:

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.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's 22 less seats using the figures above - I've been on numerous HST's out of Paddington where there wasn't 22 spare seats in First Class.

The obvious way round that would be to remove Advance First tickets.

or not use the DFT layouts (see my post above)

 

[sprinterguy]

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.

If you were to replace the MC vehicle with an MF vehicle then a pair of 5-car IEP sets would seat 464 in standard class and 142 in first class, a total of 606 seats. Still more seats than the HST formations that they would replace though.

 

[Zoe]

Time and time again it is said on here that any electrification west of Bristol/Newbury should end at Exeter. What is the point of this unless you are going to start terminating the majority of intercity services at Exeter? Currently most intercity services continue to Plymouth so if you don't want to electrify to Plymouth (which it seems there is quite a bit of opposition to on here) then you may as well end the primary intercity network at Exeter and run a DMU service from Exeter to Plymouth. This would save needing bi-mode trains for just the last 50 miles of a long journey from London. For XC (assuming all the gaps east of Exeter are filled in) it's even worse as you end up with a situation where a train from Edinburgh runs under electric power for hundreds of miles all the way Exeter but has to cart around diesel engines just for the last 50 miles. Much better to just terminate the service at Exeter if the wires are going to end there. If there is still demand for through services to Penzance then these could be run by 222s as there would at least be 130 miles of running off the wires from Exeter to Penzance (which is over 75% of the distance from Paddington to Exeter) as opposed to just 50 to Plymouth.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Time and time again it is said on here that any electrification west of Bristol/Newbury should end at Exeter. What is the point of this unless you are going to start terminating the majority of intercity services at Exeter? Currently most intercity services continue to Plymouth so if you don't want to electrify to Plymouth (which it seems there is quite a bit of opposition to on here) then you may as well end the primary intercity network at Exeter and run a DMU service from Exeter to Plymouth. This would save needing bi-mode trains for just the last 50 miles of a long journey from London. For XC (assuming all the gaps east of Exeter are filled in) it's even worse as you end up with a situation where a train from Edinburgh runs under electric power for hundreds of miles all the way Exeter but has to cart around diesel engines just for the last 50 miles. Much better to just terminate the service at Exeter if the wires are going to end there. If there is still demand for through services to Penzance then these could be run by 222s as there would at least be 130 miles of running off the wires from Exeter to Penzance as opposed to just 50 to Plymouth.

That raises a very interesting point about the lines west of Exeter. The scenic coastal stretch past Dawlish has been a headache ever since it was opened and it isn't getting easier with the passing of the years. Stand at Dawlish station when the wind is in the wrong direction and you will get soaked on the up side platform as the waves break on the sea wall and send a shower of spray all the way across. The ballast has had to be glued down. I wonder even if it would be practicable to electrify the route.

There have been proposals to construct a direct route between Exeter and Newton Abbot, I understand it has been looked into but would involve the construction of a very long tunnel. No doubt there is someone here can shed more light on that.

Beyond Newton Abbot the route is steep and winding. This is tllting train territory if you want to run fast. The GWR considered electrification in the 1930s. To some extent between Reading and Taunton is also tilting train territory.

If there was not such resistance to locomotive haulage, Exeter would be a perfectly good place to do a changeover. Electric push from London, diesel push from the west. The London end driving trailer could have a blunt end as there is no significant high speed running west of Exeter (and via Westbury, not that much east of it, either.)

But IEP solves everything, we are assured.

 

[The Ham]

Time and time again it is said on here that any electrification west of Bristol/Newbury should end at Exeter. What is the point of this unless you are going to start terminating the majority of intercity services at Exeter? Currently most intercity services continue to Plymouth so if you don't want to electrify to Plymouth (which it seems there is quite a bit of opposition to on here) then you may as well end the primary intercity network at Exeter and run a DMU service from Exeter to Plymouth. This would save needing bi-mode trains for just the last 50 miles of a long journey from London. For XC (assuming all the gaps east of Exeter are filled in) it's even worse as you end up with a situation where a train from Edinburgh runs under electric power for hundreds of miles all the way Exeter but has to cart around diesel engines just for the last 50 miles. Much better to just terminate the service at Exeter if the wires are going to end there. If there is still demand for through services to Penzance then these could be run by 222s as there would at least be 130 miles of running off the wires as opposed to just 50 from Exeter to Plymouth.

Electrification should cover all the intercity routes, however given the first bi-model IEP's will be life expiring after 2040 (after CP11) that allows plenty of time for the line beyond Exeter/Plymouth to be electrified without the need for more bi-model trains to be ordered.

It would make sense for XC to no longer serve routes off the Electrified core after CP6 and for these services to pass to the TOC's who already have bi-model stock (with more pure EMU's as more of the routes which are currently planned to run with bi-model trains get electrified). For instance the services to Cornwall and off the wires in Scotland.

 

[Zoe]

It would make sense for XC to no longer serve routes off the Electrified core after CP6 and for these services to pass to the TOC's who already have bi-model stock (with more pure EMU's as more of the routes which are currently planned to run with bi-model trains get electrified). For instance the services to Cornwall and off the wires in Scotland.

Cornwall only gets three XC services each day. Plymouth however gets an hourly XC service. Should the XC network be cut back to Exeter to remove the need for any bi-mode XC trains? Plymouth would lose a direct link to Birmingham but then Exeter isn't the most difficult of stations to change at so it may not be an issue.

 

[HSTEd]

That raises a very interesting point about the lines west of Exeter. The scenic coastal stretch past Dawlish has been a headache ever since it was opened and it isn't getting easier with the passing of the years. Stand at Dawlish station when the wind is in the wrong direction and you will get soaked on the up side platform as the waves break on the sea wall and send a shower of spray all the way across. The ballast has had to be glued down. I wonder even if it would be practicable to electrify the route.

The conditions on the Ayrshire Coast Line aren't exactly amenable to high voltage electrical equipment either, but I haven't heard of any problems there, and that is relatively lightweight Mark 3 equipment.

 

[Zoe]

Electrification should cover all the intercity routes, however given the first bi-model IEP's will be life expiring after 2040 (after CP11) that allows plenty of time for the line beyond Exeter/Plymouth to be electrified without the need for more bi-model trains to be ordered.

You wouldn't have to order more bi-mode trains. Currently the Plymouth/Penzance route is to retain HSTs. If the wires were to reach Exeter then the Penzance services can continue to use HSTs until life expired and then go over to 222s. The Plymouth terminators can be cut back to Exeter to save needing to use bi-mode for just 50 miles of a 225 mile journey or running diesels under the wires for all but the last 50 miles.

 

[HSTEd]

Or we could just push electrification all the way to Penzance, accept a 60mph speed limit on large parts of the line west of Plymouth, fit trolley wire there and go all electric.

 

[tbtc]

Or we could just push electrification all the way to Penzance, accept a 60mph speed limit on large parts of the line west of Plymouth, fit trolley wire there and go all electric.

Or just accept bi-mode?

Since we can't electrify every branch, and we can only wire up a finite length of route in each Control Period, we need bi-mode.

 

[HSTEd]

Or just accept bi-mode?

Since we can't electrify every branch, and we can only wire up a finite length of route in each Control Period, we need bi-mode.

We can only wire up a finite length of route in each control period using currently available resources and using currently acceptable designs of overhead line equipment.

If we order a second HOOP train or adopt tram style trolley wiring for routes with a suitable or nearly suitable speed profile the calculation changes rather drastically.

 

[The Ham]

Cornwall only gets three XC services each day. Plymouth however gets an hourly XC service, should the XC network be cut back to Exeter to remove the need for any bi-mode XC trains?

Depends, GW could have a services between from Cheltenham (a recommended XC change point to avoid changing at Birmingham) & Plymouth, providing plenty of choice of where to change and reducing the number of people that would have to change (assuming XC has EMU services to Exeter).

If XC ran their services to Cornwall form Leicester (Voyagers running about 60% of the way under wires) then they'd still cater for even more of the people who currently use the direct service.

 

[Zoe]

Depends, GW could have a services between from Cheltenham (a recommended XC change point to avoid changing at Birmingham) & Plymouth, providing plenty of choice of where to change and reducing the number of people that would have to change (assuming XC has EMU services to Exeter).

But then you are going to end up with a diesel service running under the wires for all but the last 50 miles. Changing at Exeter isn't as bad as Birmingham New Street.

 

[The Ham]

We can only wire up a finite length of route in each control period using currently available resources and using currently acceptable designs of overhead line equipment.

If we order a second HOOP train or adopt tram style trolley wiring for routes with a suitable or nearly suitable speed profile the calculation changes rather drastically.

By the time the 222's life expire (2030ish assuming a 30 year lifespan) we'll be in CP8, by the time we reach life expiry for the first IEP's we're likely to be in CP11 if not beyond. Meaning that we have a fairly long time to wire up the lines which are not self contained.

Given that EMU's are cheaper than DMU's on all counts and the cost difference is only likely to get worse, it is fairly safe that more resources are going to be put over to electrifying the network as time goes by.

 

[HSTEd]

By the time the 222's life expire (2030ish assuming a 30 year lifespan) we'll be in CP8, by the time we reach life expiry for the first IEP's we're likely to be in CP11 if not beyond. Meaning that we have a fairly long time to wire up the lines which are not self contained.

We are going to get hit like a sledgehammer by the retiral of the Sprinter and legacy HST fleets (XC and the Westcountry sets) in the next 10-15 years though.
If a second HOOP train was ordered immediately and proposals to start electrifying secondary routes with trolely wire were tabled now, we could potentially escape ever ordering any more DMUs ever again. (And according to TramPower there trolley-wire esque equipment is supposedly good to 90mph and absurdly cheap)

The objective should be Switzerland.

Given that EMU's are cheaper than DMU's on all counts and the cost difference is only likely to get worse, it is fairly safe that more resources are going to be put over to electrifying the network as time goes by.

I have my doubts about this, the Central Spine plan seems to have gone down like a lead baloon with the freight operators and there will be no more "positive business case" routes left after the Midland and Great Western are done.
XC is a likely addition but I am not really sure its as cut and dried as many people like to think, in this climate anyway.

 

[Zoe]

We are going to get hit like a sledgehammer by the retiral of the Sprinter and legacy HST fleets (XC and the Westcountry sets) in the next 10-15 years though.

I thought it was said that HSTs could continue a least until 2035.

 

[tbtc]

We can only wire up a finite length of route in each control period using currently available resources and using currently acceptable designs of overhead line equipment.

If we order a second HOOP train or adopt tram style trolley wiring for routes with a suitable or nearly suitable speed profile the calculation changes rather drastically.

Well, yes, if we spend even more money then anything is possible, but realistically I think that the CP5 electrification is at the high end of expectations - I can't see anything else being wired up before 2019.

 

[HSTEd]

I thought it was said that HSTs could continue a least until 2035.

Yes, they can, but the costs can be expected to keep escalating beyond 2020, each year they will cost more and more to run until replacement becomes cheaper than doing nothing.

The projections about when exactly that point will be reached are the kind that can be off by ten years or more in either direction.

 

[ainsworth74]

I thought it was said that HSTs could continue a least until 2035.

The operative word there is could and that assumes that people are willing to spend a lot of money on them.

 

[tbtc]

I thought it was said that HSTs could continue a least until 2035.

As I understand it, the bodywork could keep going until then (if you throw enough money at them), but then the same could presumably be said of some other classes.

 

[The Ham]

I thought it was said that HSTs could continue a least until 2035.

COULD, my last car could have kept going for several years (as there was no rust), but by the time I'd have paid to have new cam belt fitted, fixed the suspension and got new tyres for it, it wasn't much cheaper to get a replacement which didn't have all the other minor faults that my old car had.

That is the problem as after 2017 that only leaves up to 18 years of life in the HST's, however long before we reach that end date there will be several which are no longer viable to run and they will all need a fairly expensive overhaul at some point in that time frame.

 

[JamesRowden]

We are going to get hit like a sledgehammer by the retiral of the Sprinter and legacy HST fleets (XC and the Westcountry sets) in the next 10-15 years though.
If a second HOOP train was ordered immediately and proposals to start electrifying secondary routes with trolely wire were tabled now, we could potentially escape ever ordering any more DMUs ever again. (And according to TramPower there trolley-wire esque equipment is supposedly good to 90mph and absurdly cheap)

If the proposed CP5 electrification goes ahead and the obvious XC infills are electrfied early in CP6:

Birmingham-Derby
Sheffield-Doncaster
Sheffield-Leeds-York

Then I think that across the national network we already have enough 125mph DMUs to replace all of the HSTs (discounting those replaced by IEP and other EMUs) and enough to run all of the remaining services that reqiure such stock.

 

[HSTEd]

Doesn't XC have an hourly service to Aberdeen that would not convert? ditto all the trains to Plymouth wouldn't either, not without electrification stretching a lot further than it will.

 

[tbtc]

Doesn't XC have an hourly service to Aberdeen that would not convert?

No - one or two a day (depends whether you count the balancing journeys)

 

[JamesRowden]

Doesn't XC have an hourly service to Aberdeen that would not convert? ditto all the trains to Plymouth wouldn't either, not without electrification stretching a lot further than it will.

I think that the Voyagers that would come off the Bournemouth-Manchester and Southampton/Reading-Newcastle services plus the five GW 180s coming off the Paddington-Hereford line would be enough to cover those services (And Grand Central if they don't get replaced by IEP).

 

[Goatboy]

You wouldn't have to order more bi-mode trains. Currently the Plymouth/Penzance route is to retain HSTs. If the wires were to reach Exeter then the Penzance services can continue to use HSTs until life expired and then go over to 222s. The Plymouth terminators can be cut back to Exeter to save needing to use bi-mode for just 50 miles of a 225 mile journey or running diesels under the wires for all but the last 50 miles.

I can tell you don't live West of Exeter! Politically speaking removing a large proportion of direct trains from a city with a population of over 250,000 will not go down well. There is already an impression that West of Exeter is considered an unimportant backwater in transport terms (No Motorway, no credible Airport) without removing the one thing it DOES have going for it - a frequent selection of direct trains to most parts of the country.

Plymouth is twice the size of Exeter and the second largest city in the South West.

 

[Zoe]

I can tell you don't live West of Exeter! Politically speaking removing a large proportion of direct trains from a city with a population of over 250,000 will not go down well. There is already an impression that West of Exeter is considered an unimportant backwater in transport terms (No Motorway, no credible Airport) without removing the one thing it DOES have going for it - a frequent selection of direct trains to most parts of the country.

Plymouth is twice the size of Exeter and the second largest city in the South West.

Then why is it repeatedely suggested that the wires should end at Exeter? It's a bit pointless to electrify all but the last 50 miles of the route to Plymouth if most trains will continue to run through to Plymoth after electrification. Plymouth may well be twice the size of Exeter but that doesn't mean there are more people travelling from Plymouth. Exeter is closer to London and likely has more demand as a result of this. A 2 hour journey time to London makes a day trip quite easy.

 

[starrymarkb]

I can tell you don't live West of Exeter! Politically speaking removing a large proportion of direct trains from a city with a population of over 250,000 will not go down well. There is already an impression that West of Exeter is considered an unimportant backwater in transport terms (No Motorway, no credible Airport) without removing the one thing it DOES have going for it - a frequent selection of direct trains to most parts of the country.

Plymouth is twice the size of Exeter and the second largest city in the South West.

The lack of Motorway is more to do with the Terrain west of Exeter, it would be hard to build the motorway through the hills west of Exeter while keeping gradients and curves within motorway limits. By building as the A38 they could hug the terrain more and go over the hills...

 

[The Ham]

The lack of Motorway is more to do with the Terrain west of Exeter, it would be hard to build the motorway through the hills west of Exeter while keeping gradients and curves within motorway limits. By building as the A38 they could hug the terrain more and go over the hills...

It is also to do with the fact that the A38 was first designated in 1922 and upgraded in the early 1970's. As by upgrading a road you can get away with more than if you are building it from scratch (it is also a lot cheaper).