GEML Capacity Study - possible new locos and Mk3 refurbishment?

[jopsuk]

There's a big blank spot on the roof of a 90- surely a second pan, to protect against such problems, would be easier with them than with the mods being made to equip the 91s with a secondary pantograph?

 

[Dave1987]

There's a big blank spot on the roof of a 90- surely a second pan, to protect against such problems, would be easier with them than with the mods being made to equip the 91s with a secondary pantograph?

The thing is the 90's dont often have pan problems. Infact recently since on train monitoring was introduced I think they passed something like the 50,000 miles per failure mark or something around that figure.

 

[captainbigun]

The thing is the 90's dont often have pan problems. Infact recently since on train monitoring was introduced I think they passed something like the 50,000 miles per failure mark or something around that figure.

True, but the regime of pan head changes in winter is very expensive.

There's little point in investing in them.....they are unlikely to be around for that much longer.

 

[Dave1987]

True, but the regime of pan head changes in winter is very expensive.

There's little point in investing in them.....they are unlikely to be around for that much longer.

Indeed looks like they will be cascaded to freight and new 125mph traxx loco precured

 

[captainbigun]

Not so sure about the freight bit, there appears to be a lack of interest.

TRAXX is one option but DfT doesn't like locos and carriages so at the moment I'd have my money on units.

 

[Dave1987]

Not so sure about the freight bit, there appears to be a lack of interest.

TRAXX is one option but DfT doesn't like locos and carriages so at the moment I'd have my money on units.

Indeed even though that report suggests traxx locos are the cheaper better option! Why are the DFT so insistant an wasting vast amounts of money all over the place?? £5bn here, £400m there..... They really haven't a clue!!

 

[AndyLandy]

I suspect I've said it already, but I envisage the GEML getting an AC variant of the Class 444 EMU, or equivalent from another manufacturer's platform. It's more-or-less ideal traction for the Intercity services.

 

[Dave1987]

No buffet facilities so they couldn't use them for intercity Norwich services. Thats why report recommends traxx loco's on mk3 and modified dvt's

 

[AndyLandy]

No buffet facilities so they couldn't use them for intercity Norwich services. Thats why report recommends traxx loco's on mk3 and modified dvt's

Actually, the 444s do have micro buffets, in the TSRMB vehicles. Whether SWT ever use them in service is an entirely different matter.

Of course, there's no reason why an Intercity Desiro couldn't have a larger buffet if it was felt that's what was needed.

 

[Dave1987]

Actually, the 444s do have micro buffets, in the TSRMB vehicles. Whether SWT ever use them in service is an entirely different matter.

Of course, there's no reason why an Intercity Desiro couldn't have a larger buffet if it was felt that's what was needed.

Im sure that this Atkin's report studied the feasibility of desiro's on the London - Norwich route but said the lack of a buffet and the fact you would lose a lot of seats because of intermediate cabs made them unsuitable. Have you read the Atkin's report? Its very good actually.

 

[AndyLandy]

Im sure that this Atkin's report studied the feasibility of desiro's on the London - Norwich route but said the lack of a buffet and the fact you would lose a lot of seats because of intermediate cabs made them unsuitable. Have you read the Atkin's report? Its very good actually.

I've not. Do you have a link?

On the other hand, two 5-car "344s" should still give much more cabin space than a 90+8xMk3+DVT formation. The cabs in the driving vehicles don't eat into much carriage space at all.

 

[captainbigun]

Im sure that this Atkin's report studied the feasibility of desiro's on the London - Norwich route but said the lack of a buffet and the fact you would lose a lot of seats because of intermediate cabs made them unsuitable. Have you read the Atkin's report? Its very good actually.

Bear in mind who the report was commisioned by and the direction that was given. It doesn't represent all the users of the line, the findings were pretty predictable.

 

[tbtc]

AIUI the problem that the GEML longer distance stock has is the lack of platform space at Liverpool Street - so a move to EMUs would allow an extra coach or two of capacity (that cannot simply be added to the length of a 90+DVT)?

Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

Indeed even though that report suggests traxx locos are the cheaper better option!

I presume that you're not a fan of their "last mile" TRAXX though?

 

[Dave1987]

Heres the link:

http://www.newanglia.co.uk/Assets/F... Study - Final Report - V1.5 (30-10-2012).pdf

And no im not a fan of the "Last Mile" thing. In fact until you pointed that out I didnt know about it. Just pointless extra weight considering they will be operating on totally electrified lines!!

 

[WatcherZero]

Didnt a study basically say that about 80% of rail depots on electrified lines couldnt be reached because the 'last mile' wasnt electrified and that was the main thing holding back more electric freight.

I do know the industry response to the Governments 'Electric Spine' has been a big 'not interested' saying they would rather the money was spent on smaller projects on existing electrified lines.

 

[E-Rail]

Interesting option from Porterbrook of creating a Mark 3 DBSO by grafting an Electrostar cab onto a mark 3 coach. Surely this along with a refurb to Mallard standard with Chiltern style plug doors would see the existing Norwich sets through another 10-15 years?

http://www.porterbrook.com/downloads/brochures/Mk3 Brochure.pdf

Much will no doubt depend on who is ultimately successful in securing the 15 year franchise.

 

[AndyLandy]

Interesting option from Porterbrook of creating a Mark 3 DBSO by grafting an Electrostar cab onto a mark 3 coach. Surely this along with a refurb to Mallard standard with Chiltern style plug doors would see the existing Norwich sets through another 10-15 years.

The key point (for me at least) is about the expected lifetime of these vehicles and the associated cost. Is it cost-effective to invest in a full refurb and DDA compliance on the Mk3s to keep them going for another 10 years, or is it better to procure a fleet of EMUs that could last us 40 years?

I believe the Chiltern Mk3s happened because of a very specific set of circumstances. Partly because the trains now in use were already sitting idle; partly because no suitable DMUs were available, and procuring some was not possible; and partly because they only have to last 10-15 years, at which point I expect to see the line electrified and for them to be replaced by EMUs.

 

[E-Rail]

The key point (for me at least) is about the expected lifetime of these vehicles and the associated cost. Is it cost-effective to invest in a full refurb and DDA compliance on the Mk3s to keep them going for another 10 years, or is it better to procure a fleet of EMUs that could last us 40 years?.

Fair point. I always expected to see some of the MKIV stock cascaded from the ECML as replacements for the current sets, albeit without the 91s but in this age of austerity, I can't see a business case for replacing them yet on the East Coast.

 

[AndyLandy]

Fair point. I always expected to see some of the MKIV stock cascaded from the ECML as replacements for the current sets, albeit without the 91s but in this age of austerity, I can't see a business case for replacing them yet on the East Coast.

Personally, I reckon they will be replaced on East Coast--With electric IEPs. That'd give fleet commonality and would probably help with pathing as well. I suspect the IC225s will then be cascaded to the MML, since that's due to be electrified and will need some electric trains to replace the HSTs. (MML Services that run beyond the wires would continue to be run with Class 222 Meridian trains.)

 

[Dave1987]

Didnt a study basically say that about 80% of rail depots on electrified lines couldnt be reached because the 'last mile' wasnt electrified and that was the main thing holding back more electric freight.

I do know the industry response to the Governments 'Electric Spine' has been a big 'not interested' saying they would rather the money was spent on smaller projects on existing electrified lines.

Yes well you cant have OHLE with cranes and the like around
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The key point (for me at least) is about the expected lifetime of these vehicles and the associated cost. Is it cost-effective to invest in a full refurb and DDA compliance on the Mk3s to keep them going for another 10 years, or is it better to procure a fleet of EMUs that could last us 40 years?

I believe the Chiltern Mk3s happened because of a very specific set of circumstances. Partly because the trains now in use were already sitting idle; partly because no suitable DMUs were available, and procuring some was not possible; and partly because they only have to last 10-15 years, at which point I expect to see the line electrified and for them to be replaced by EMUs.

Atkins reckons £250k per train to refurb mk3's against £7m per unit for new stock for desiros without buffet and less seating. I know which I would go for!

 

[D365]

Atkins reckons £250k per carriage to refurb mk3's against £7m per (complete?) unit for new stock for desiros without buffet and less seating. I know which I would go for!

Vs £1m-odd for refurbishing a Class 317 vehicle, or presumably any one of a Mk3/PEP EMU, to the standard of 317722. Am generalising a tad though.

 

[HSTEd]

Atkins reckons £250k per train to refurb mk3's against £7m per unit for new stock for desiros without buffet and less seating. I know which I would go for!

I severely doubt that will give them a Chiltern grade rebuild.

As I understand the £250k figure generated by said rebuilds was per vehicle not carriage.

I doubt 250k for a rake of eight Mark 3s would buy you enough man hours to even dismantle them to the same degree as the Chiltern stock was.
Much less replace or recondition all teh specialist parts (especially those obsolete motor generators or bespoke static converters that would have to be sourced.)

Then you have to worry about the new locomotives you will be purchasing and the fact that these mark 3s have at best 15 years left in them, compared to a full 40 year life span for the new units.

Then the reduced traction energy expenditure due to the reduced train weight entailed by having no locomotive.
Then the reduced track access charges from having no locomotive and reduced train weight.

The list goes on.

Loco haulage has had its day for passenger trains, especially daytime electrics.

 

[Dave1987]

I severely doubt that will give them a Chiltern grade rebuild.

As I understand the £250k figure generated by said rebuilds was per vehicle not carriage.

I doubt 250k for a rake of eight Mark 3s would buy you enough man hours to even dismantle them to the same degree as the Chiltern stock was.
Much less replace or recondition all teh specialist parts (especially those obsolete motor generators or bespoke static converters that would have to be sourced.)

Then you have to worry about the new locomotives you will be purchasing and the fact that these mark 3s have at best 15 years left in them, compared to a full 40 year life span for the new units.

Then the reduced traction energy expenditure due to the reduced train weight entailed by having no locomotive.
Then the reduced track access charges from having no locomotive and reduced train weight.

The list goes on.

Loco haulage has had its day for passenger trains, especially daytime electrics.

http://www.porterbrook.com/downloads/brochures/Mk3 Brochure.pdf

Have you read this??

Clearly states that loco hauling causes less track wear than emu's and track access charges are less

I know you are totally against any loco hauling but please check your facts.

And Atkins clearly states £250k per complete train of mk3's. why are we so so keen to scrap assets that are still good or 15yrs. Brand new trains are very very expensive.

 

[captainbigun]

Mk3 rebuild is min 250k PER VEHICLE.

The calculations comparing cost do not account for the full lifetime of a new unit. It is a side by side comparison using the expected lifetime of the mk3 once rebuilt. So, it's only part of the story.

It is in Porterbrook's interest to push the Mk3, it's a written down asset they can sweat further. Equally Beacon are happy to push TRAXX as they can move them on into Europe once they are done with here.

In order to complete the picture you need Eversholt/Angel and Siemens to put forward a proposal for an EMU.

It's all very well comparing to units that are ten years old, but that is not what you would be ordering.

 

[ainsworth74]

Clearly states that loco hauling causes less track wear than emu's and track access charges are less

Actually it doesn't, what it does say is:

Vehicle maintenance is simplified by all traction equipment being on the locomotive, and track access charges are low.

Which suggests to me we're talking about the Mk3s alone being cheap. Once you build a rake including a locomotive and DVT the picture changes somewhat. Indeed by my reckoning (using CP4 track access charges) a rake of a 90+8Mk3s+DVT is more expensive than a 10-car 444. Though I can make the same equation favour the LHCS by picking a 9-car 390 as the comparator.

So if you look at a rake of 8Mk3s then yes it cheaper than an EMU. It also won't be going anywhere very quickly. Though I wonder if Porterbrook might have some sort of vested interest to make their Mk3s look as attractive as possible?

 

[captainbigun]

So if you look at a rake of 8Mk3s then yes it cheaper than an EMU. It also won't be going anywhere very quickly. Though I wonder if Porterbrook might have some sort of vested interest to make their Mk3s look as attractive as possible?

Absolutely it is. It is money for nothing against spending 250k a wagon. If GA don't take them then next stop cutter torch.

 

[Dave1987]

Actually it doesn't, what it does say is:



Which suggests to me we're talking about the Mk3s alone being cheap. Once you build a rake including a locomotive and DVT the picture changes somewhat. Indeed by my reckoning (using CP4 track access charges) a rake of a 90+8Mk3s+DVT is more expensive than a 10-car 444. Though I can make the same equation favour the LHCS by picking a 9-car 390 as the comparator.

So if you look at a rake of 8Mk3s then yes it cheaper than an EMU. It also won't be going anywhere very quickly. Though I wonder if Porterbrook might have some sort of vested interest to make their Mk3s look as attractive as possible?

So £2.25m for a 9 car completely refurbed mk3 set or £7m per emu unit? Plus emu track charges higher. With a traxx loco acceleration wouldn't be a problem. Why scrap arguably the best designed coach ever when they are still good. Typical British thinking that! Just like our supposedly "knackered" 86's are working just fine in Bulgaria!

 

[captainbigun]

See above re costs and track access. 250k per vehicle MINIMUM! Likely to be 250-350, depending on remedial work required and specification.

86s in Hungary, 87s in Bulgaria.

 

[D365]

So £2.25m for a 9 car completely refurbed mk3 set or £7m per emu unit? Plus emu track charges higher. With a traxx loco acceleration wouldn't be a problem. Why scrap arguably the best designed coach ever when they are still good. Typical British thinking that! Just like our supposedly "knackered" 86's are working just fine in Bulgaria!

EMU track access charge is lower when a loco and DVT is factored in; IC225 vs 9-car Pendolino is be a good example. New locos may be an idea but the 90s are pretty solid for now. In any case, scrapping any more Mk3s is a complete waste when we have arguably never been so desperate for capacity. Porterbrook obviously want to sell these though, that's why the brochure is written like an advertisement. They have to make money somehow!

I don't know what you mean about 'typical British thinking' when we have plans to give the majority of our Mk3 EMUs a solid refurbishment, extending the lifespan by up to 20 years. Btw, it's the 87s which are in Bulgaria, a few 86s have been exported to Hungary though. Obviously they aren't 'knackered', it's just that we have replaced them with more modern and suitable stock here.

 

[tbtc]

emu track charges higher

No - an EMU (like the 444 example used on this thread) would have a lower track access charge than a loco plus coaches - a heavy loco would obviously have a lot more wear and tear on the track so would cost more.