East Coast IEPs Ordered - Class 800

[transmanche]

Surely the 225 replacement will be all-electric? ie Class 801?

I think a bit of confusion is being caused by the way the press release has been worded.

It uses the phrase "Class 800 series" to describe all IEP variants:

The latest order for the trains, called the class 800 series

Later on, it explains the two variants:

There will be electric-only (class 801) and bi-mode (class 800) variants of the class 800 series, enabling them to operate on both electrified and non-electrified routes.

In the written statement to Parliament, it explicity states this order is for the electric version, to replace the 91+MkIVs:

The option is to purchase a further 270 vehicles to replace the electric Intercity 225 fleet which currently runs on the East Coast Main Line with a fleet of new, high quality, modern, higher capacity class 800 series 9-car electric trains.

 

[tbtc]

270 new coaches getting built and we're all complaining? We are a funny bunch.

jcollins idea of using 225s for Manchester - Reading/ Southampton/ Bournemouth hadn't occured to me before, but the more I think about it the more I like it.

It takes eleven units to run the hourly service from Manchester to Bournemouth. Add in an hourly Manchester - Reading/Southampton service (i.e. replacing the "other" XC service from Manchester to Birmingham and from Birmingham to Reading/Southampton) and you'd need around twenty.

Add in a handful for Manchester to Glasgow/Edinburgh and maybe you've used all of the 225 sets? Wishful thinking on my behalf?

You would have to rip up the EMT timetable and start again to get an all electric timetable

Not at all.

All of the five daytime services an hour from London will run wholly under the wires (once the CP5 commitment is completed).

The only exceptions are:

• One a day north of Corby (could EMT/XC run a Corby - Melton Mowbray/ Leicester DMU? not a major service)
• Sheffield to Leeds (just placing journeys for HSTs based at Neville Hill at anti-social hours - you could withdraw the bit north of Leeds today without much fuss)
• A handful via the Erewash route (mainly the Leeds journeys - since the some of the London - Nottingham HSTs are based at Neville Hill)
• A weekend service to Skegness (York in the winter) - fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things

Once you have sufficient space in the East Midlands (or Sheffield) to accomodate all trains (other than those in Cricklewood) you don't need the Leeds journeys (which eliminates most of the Erewash services).

Really, the High Speed EMT running away from the wires (come 2019) is what you'd call a "rounding error".

I'd put money on the gaps between Sheffield - Moorthorpe/Doncaster being done in CP6 anyway, plus maybe the Erewash route.

 

[Goatboy]

Is replacement of the IC225 fleet really the best use of £1.2bn the government could think of for new rail stock?

It seems bizarre - what exactly is wrong with the IC225 fleet that requires replacement ahead of time and before the replacement of other, much older trains on the network?

Surely there must be some sort of cascade in mind to make this a sensible decision?

Shame that XC won't be fully wired as they'd work nicely on South West to Scotland services.

 

[bnm]

The end of civilised long distance intercity travel is at hand. Sub voyager clones here we come

Hyperbole. An explanation of 'civilised'? Not easy when the final interior layout is not yet known.

No doubt the same was said when steam was withdrawn. Mk1/Mk2 compartment stock was withdrawn. Deltics were withdrawn....

 

[tbtc]

Is replacement of the IC225 fleet really the best use of £1.2bn the government could think of for new rail stock?

Similarly you could ask whether replacement of the Heathrow Connect 360s is the best use of Government resources (since these may be spare after Crossrail is built).

Or whether replacing the modern 185s is a good idea (since most of them will be freed up by electrification in northern England).

Reality is that the 225s will end up somewhere - they could even move to XC if they had a diesel hauling them (no reason why they have to stick to 91s).

 

[Class172]

Is replacement of the IC225 fleet really the best use of £1.2bn the government could think of for new rail stock?

If only we could decide... :roll:

 

[Goatboy]

Similarly you could ask whether replacement of the Heathrow Connect 360s is the best use of Government resources (since these may be spare after Crossrail is built).

Or whether replacing the modern 185s is a good idea (since most of them will be freed up by electrification in northern England).

Reality is that the 225s will end up somewhere - they could even move to XC if they had a diesel hauling them (no reason why they have to stick to 91s).

Provided they don't end up in the bin, then I agree.

I think they'd be particularly suitable for XC and would alleviate almost every XC issue almost immediatly and in time through increased capacity allow the fare issue to be tackled as well whilst increasing profitability.

 

[SkinnyDave]

Pendolino critics will be pleased it wont be going near the ECML

Would I be wrong in assuming that East Coast didnt get a say in this order/Decision?

 

[Pure BR]

I Went on the 225 to York, and thought it was a very nice bit of kit. So, as they don't really need replacing (miles better than Pendos!) why spend all that money? Maybe to justify the Ikea flat pack factory in Durham?

 

[Dave1987]

I'm very very confused by this. There are much much older trains on the network that need replacing that are a lot less comfortable than the trains that work the east coast currently, why spend vast amount of money replacing perfectly good trains when the north still have to put up with pacers. Def the wrong decision.

 

[Pure BR]

I'm very very confused by this. There are much much older trains on the network that need replacing that are a lot less comfortable than the trains that work the east coast currently, why spend vast amount of money replacing perfectly good trains when the north still have to put up with pacers. Def the wrong decision.

Very much agree. Think it is more political. That £1.2 billion could be much better spent on upgrading the 225s plus other trains on the network. Maybe get rid of those damn Pacers!!!!!!!!!!

 

[HSTEd]

Right so you seem to be saying that adding extra capacity to the XC network would be a waste, the mk4 could all be scrapped and you'll order AC versions of 444s (which according to another poster on here is something that Siemens said can't be done as the 444 blueprints have now been torn up as they are an out-dated design)?

Note I said 444 alikes, which basically means something like that but probably with a 380 esque front end to comply with crash regulations.
And adding extra capacity is one thing, but what you are proposing is madness, you want to go from 200 seats on a 4-car set to a 9-car+loco/DVT set with 538 seats while maintaining the same timetable? Utter madness.
A Class 444 alike rated for 110 (so 'flat' front) would have ~334 seats, which is still a major gain in capacity but not absurd.

If we scrap trains just because they won't use their top speed if they are cascaded to other routes then why not scrap the 333s which don't go above 90mph on any services but are 100mph capable?

It is not the top speed that is the problem, it is the poor acceleration, enormous size, high operating costs and low reliability which are the problem.
Find me a route which is a reasonable fit and we can use them.

 

[ModernRailways]

Does anyone have the agreement where it mentioned that smell from toilets couldn't go down the coach and had to be contained? I don't remember where it was for the life of me.

 

[tbtc]

I Went on the 225 to York, and thought it was a very nice bit of kit. So, as they don't really need replacing (miles better than Pendos!) why spend all that money? Maybe to justify the Ikea flat pack factory in Durham?

I suppose that one justification is that it'll give the ECML operator one type of train to work with (with some bi-mode and some with only one engine) and that it'll kickstart other cascades.

Much easier to order a big batch of a couple of hundred coaches in a large order and then cascade (than have different companies ordering seperate deliveries of trains).

I'm very very confused by this. There are much much older trains on the network that need replacing that are a lot less comfortable than the trains that work the east coast currently, why spend vast amount of money replacing perfectly good trains when the north still have to put up with pacers. Def the wrong decision.

Nobody has said that the 225 sets are getting withdrawn, just that they won't be running on their current ECML services.

They might move to Liverpool - Newcastle, they might move to Manchester - Bournemouth, they might move to London - Nottingham, they might move to Glasgow - Aberdeen, they might move to Manchester - Edinburgh... they might have new diesel engines to haul them which opens up the possibilities even further.

 

[northwichcat]

I Went on the 225 to York, and thought it was a very nice bit of kit. So, as they don't really need replacing (miles better than Pendos!) why spend all that money? Maybe to justify the Ikea flat pack factory in Durham?

More electric Intercity stock will be needed anyway. The new stock on the ECML will allow more and faster services. When the Pendolinos went on to the WCML it didn't mean the old WCML stock was scrapped but it did mean the WCML got more and faster services.

The IC 125's with EC will need replacing, so for fleet consistency there is some logic in East Coast getting a fleet of all IEP.

 

[DarloRich]

Hyperbole. An explanation of 'civilised'? Not easy when the final interior layout is not yet known.

No doubt the same was said when steam was withdrawn. Mk1/Mk2 compartment stock was withdrawn. Deltics were withdrawn....

Think what you like. Going on recent train interiors I will be right.

Will the new trains offer an improvement on the exiting levels of passenger comfort. I doubt it. Will they even meet the current levels of passenger comfort? Once again, I doubt it .

 

[northwichcat]

It is not the top speed that is the problem, it is the poor acceleration, enormous size, high operating costs and low reliability which are the problem.
Find me a route which is a reasonable fit and we can use them.

There was me thinking loco hauled stock allows for formations to be changed more easily than with DMUs, EMUs and DEMUs and you're insisting they have to remain in their current lengths, obviously additional locos would be needed if all the carriages were to remain in use but the new locos could be ordered to suit the routes they will run on with better acceleration and lower track access costs.

 

[CC 72100]

Provided they don't end up in the bin, then I agree.

What about the Great Western service to Devon + Cornwall, which I think have been earmarked as staying with HSTs. I like the latter as much as anyone, but why bother having mark 4s and not mark 3s, you've already saved yourself a lot of work by using the mark 4s instead.

Uses on XC I also agree with.

 

[tbtc]

What about the Great Western service to Devon + Cornwall, which I think have been earmarked as staying with HSTs. I like the latter as much as anyone, but why by having mark 4s and not mark 3s, you've already saved yourself a lot of work

Since the HST engines are pretty young, could you use Class 43s and the Mk4 coaches?

I've never seen it suggested before, or at least I don't remember seeing it, so is there a reason it wouldn't work?

 

[transmanche]

Does anyone have the agreement where it mentioned that smell from toilets couldn't go down the coach and had to be contained? I don't remember where it was for the life of me.

I mentioned it in another thread.

Page 61 of the IEP specification says:

The toilet system shall limit the presence of odours within the toilet cubicle and prevent their escape into surrounding passenger areas including vestibules when the toilet door is closed. The passenger saloon must be free from toilet odours at all times.

Are you going to print that out and take it on your first class 800/801 journey?!?!

 

[gordonthemoron]

how about Mk91+ClassIV stopping service from Stratford to Lille

 

[sprinterguy]

Since the HST engines are pretty young, could you use Class 43s and the Mk4 coaches?

I've never seen it suggested before, or at least I don't remember seeing it, so is there a reason it wouldn't work?

Either the mark 4 carriages would have to be rewired to accept three phase train supply from the HST power cars or the power cars would have to be altered to provide standard ETS as used by the mark 4s.

Additionally, I believe that the TDM control system used to control a class 91 loco from a DVT is different to the control arrangement used between a pair of HST power cars: Although I don't think that this would cause an issue as far as the mark 4s are concerned, as test formations of HST power cars (In pairs) and mark 4 carriages have occured in the past.

 

[broadgage]

Think what you like. Going on recent train interiors I will be right.

Will the new trains offer an improvement on the exiting levels of passenger comfort. I doubt it. Will they even meet the current levels of passenger comfort? Once again, I doubt it .

Agree 100%.
Voyager clone at best, and will probably be worse.
And yes I know that the internal layout has yet to be specified, but does anyone really believe that a new train will have more legroom, more luggage space, better catering facilities, more seats at full size tables, and windows aligned with the seats ? I certainly do not, and this is not random cynicism but is the result of other new trains.

And of course the existing 225 stock needs scrapping ASAP, like HSTs these are too good for todays railway.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Agree 100%.
Voyager clone at best, and will probably be worse.
And yes I know that the internal layout has yet to be specified, but does anyone really believe that a new train will have more legroom, more luggage space, better catering facilities, more seats at full size tables, and windows aligned with the seats ? I certainly do not, and this is not random cynicism but is the result of other new trains.

And of course the existing 225 stock needs scrapping ASAP, like HSTs these are too good for todays railway.

It won't be worse for 1 reason. They arn't going to tilt!

 

[transmanche]

Voyager clone at best, and will probably be worse.

Why would a different design from a different manufacturer be a 'Voyager clone'?

 

[sprinterguy]

It won't be worse for 1 reason. They arn't going to tilt!

They will be three metres longer though, which might well reduce the maximum vehicle width possible while remaining within the loading gauge.

 

[ModernRailways]

I mentioned it in another thread.

Page 61 of the IEP specification says:


Are you going to print that out and take it on your first class 800/801 journey?!?!

Thanks!

Haha! I pray to god they make sure it doesn't smell! I've always been fine on a Voyager, but it's always been the first trains of the day and they tend to be quiet. I get East Coast at every time of day so it would be a problem! I may well take a copy and then shout at all the officials on board if it fails my smell test :P

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Hopefully the 225's will find a new life on the MML following electrification but if as people have said they are not suitable for the MML because of being too slow to accelerate then could they be split up with the MKIV's being paired up with Greater Anglia's class 90's (with are only marginally older then the 91's) to replace their MKIII's?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also what is the exact make up of orders of Electric and Bi-Mode IEP's and how will they be split between Great Western and East Coast?

 

[ainsworth74]

and windows aligned with the seats ? I certainly do not, and this is not random cynicism but is the result of other new trains.

Though not even the beloved Mk3s had every seat matching up with the windows...

They will be three metres longer though, which might well reduce the maximum vehicle width possible while remaining within the loading gauge.

I believe the ends are going to be tapered to avoid undue difficulty with the extra length.

 

[transmanche]

And yes I know that the internal layout has yet to be specified, but does anyone really believe that a new train will have more legroom, more luggage space, better catering facilities, more seats at full size tables, and windows aligned with the seats ? I certainly do not, and this is not random cynicism but is the result of other new trains.

Well these things are always subject to change, but the draft internal layouts were published by DfT last year.

The specification states a ratio of 35% bay seating (I assume this is table seating) and 65% unidirectional seating. It allows for variable seat pitch, but specifies minimum 'knee room' in standard class of 750mm (29.5") for unidirectional seats and 735mm (29") for bay seats.

For comparison the seat pitch on easyJet is 29" - meaning the 'knee room' is much less than that. I don't know how 'knee room' is officially defined, but this post from 2010 which uses a definition of "the distance from the rear of the seat (parallel with the seat cushion) to the point on the rear of the seat in front at the height where one's knees would normally be" suggests that the IEP knee room will be on par with a Class 185, Pendolino or EMT HST and more generous than an EC/FGW/XC HST, Class 158 or a MkIV coach.

Edit: the Transport Secretary's statement says the 9-car trains will have 627 seats. In the draft layout (linked above), the 9-car train had a total of 636 seats (526 standard and 110 first) - so I expect the layout to be very similar to the draft.

Second edit: My poor maths, adding up the figures again, the draft layout plans do indeed show 627 seats (526 standard and 101 first) - so I expect that the draft layout is in fact the final layout.