East Coast IEPs Ordered - Class 800

[HSTEd]

Even though others have already told you that it's not feasible to increase the rate of electrification?

Technically we could probably double the rate of electrification or more, but that would require bringing in every overhead line engineer/worker we can find in Europe.
That would be a political impossibility.

 

[Dave1987]

Any chance we can keep the argument about bi-mode to a bi-mode thread? And the ECML stuff somewhere else? Probably too late?



Who is calling for what 25 year old trains to be scrapped? Unless you are talking about Pacers?



You've reached the conspiracy theory level. Congratulations.

There are plenty of passengers on my line calling for the 321's to be scrapped, I noticed on twitter that people are already commenting that the Nor-Lon services will get the "cast offs" from the ECML. It seems that passengers demand brand new trains. So I stand by my thinking that these will not last 30-50 years.

As far as the conspiracy theory goes, it's happened in the past.

 

[YorkshireBear]

There are plenty of passengers on my line calling for the 321's to be scrapped, I noticed on twitter that people are already commenting that the Nor-Lon services will get the "cast offs" from the ECML. It seems that passengers demand brand new trains. So I stand by my thinking that these will not last 30-50 years.

As far as the conspiracy theory goes, it's happened in the past.

The order started under labour so i doubt this transport secretary will go to work for Hitachi...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ah, new Diesel engines on the UK network...



Ponders the possibility of a new 2/3/4 car DMU order !

Although shorter, suburban DMUs probably won't require 940hp power units as are being fitted to the IEPs!

So presumably there's now a diesel engine that meets emissions regulations and can fit under the floor of a vehicle that will fit the UK loading gauge? That's an extra positive from all this. Perhaps Hitachi could also come up with a viable low-cost pacer replacement that would keep it's new factory busy once the IEP order scales down.

Given that a 142 has a total of 450hp, a scaled-down version of these power units attached to a modern, lightweight bodyshell would be ideal- even decommissioned engines from converted bi-modes could be used, perhaps with just one engine per 2/3-car unit?

As things stand with the HSTs/Meridians and now Mk4 sets being usurped from their current duties (along with 185s too) means that we'll have a surplus of high-powered/intercity rolling stock which is not ideal for cascading to lesser routes. Even 155/6/8 units are used on services that they aren't ideal for in terms of dwell-times: Huddersfield-Leeds for example being more suited to stock with doors at 1/3 & 2/3 rather than at the ends of carriages.

To get vaguely back on topic, I can't see the Mk4 sets being sent to the scrapheap- The obvious candidates would be MML or GEML services, but perhaps the London-Cornwall services would be good too- Running them with the 91s until the wires run out and dragging onwards with a 67/68? That might even be a solution for future London-West Wales services...

 

[transmanche]

So presumably there's now a diesel engine that meets emissions regulations and can fit under the floor of a vehicle that will fit the UK loading gauge?

The 'powerpack' selected for the IEP is the MTU 12V 1600 R80L, which will be compliant with EU Stage IIIB emissions regulations.

Source: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...werpacks-for-intercity-express-programme.html

 

[anthony263]

The 'powerpack' selected for the IEP is the MTU 12V 1600 R80L, which will be compliant with EU Stage IIIB emissions regulations.

Source: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...werpacks-for-intercity-express-programme.html

One issue that has been raised is about the size of the MTU engines for IEP especially how will hitachi fit them under the carriages while allowing a good amount of clearance between the bottom of the engines/powerpacks and the trackbed.

I did read somewhere that the carriages might be a little higher than the current Mark 3 carriages etc.

I have my doubts about IEP in particular the bi-mode version hower there is likely to be an energy crises shortly with more power stations needing to be built over the next few years so the bi-modes would be able to get themselves out of trouble if there are problems with overhead power supplies unless the cables have fallen onto the track.

Some people on other forums predict an interior similar to the class 153's however I seriously do hope Hitachi manage to suprise us and build a good quality train with nice comfortable interiors

 

[RochdalePioneers]

I take it MTU build their engines in Germany? Pity they couldn't have used a Darlington-made Cummins unit. And the electronics and traction motors are made where? Bogies?

Just trying to understand how much of the expensive bits of these trains we get to see being driven in lorries through the suburbs of Darlington in route from Teesport to be "built" in Newton Aycliffe. I'm particularly looking forward to all those bodyshells squeezing their way along the A1150....

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[transmanche]

Just trying to understand how much of the expensive bits of these trains we get to see being driven in lorries through the suburbs of Darlington in route from Teesport to be "built" in Newton Aycliffe.

Have a gander at post #71.

 

[Class377/5]

Eversholt's option would only last 15 years remember before they would really be reaching the end of their life. These will last 30-50 years. Its all a balance.

I hope fares don't go up either but as you say. Only time will tell.

But in that 30-50 years would also include mid life work like the proposed 225 so actually you need to reduce that timescale if your follow your argument meaning these new IEP will last 15-35yrs.

After all arguing that replacing a train at 20 years old because it can't last as long as a new build is rather a half hearted argument to start with. Will we be discussing the replacement of the IEP in 2033 because refurbishment of them won't make them last as long as new train?

 

[WatcherZero]

One issue that has been raised is about the size of the MTU engines for IEP especially how will hitachi fit them under the carriages while allowing a good amount of clearance between the bottom of the engines/powerpacks and the trackbed.

I did read somewhere that the carriages might be a little higher than the current Mark 3 carriages etc.

I have my doubts about IEP in particular the bi-mode version hower there is likely to be an energy crises shortly with more power stations needing to be built over the next few years so the bi-modes would be able to get themselves out of trouble if there are problems with overhead power supplies unless the cables have fallen onto the track.

Some people on other forums predict an interior similar to the class 153's however I seriously do hope Hitachi manage to suprise us and build a good quality train with nice comfortable interiors

The press articles describe them as the most compact rail power units MTU have ever built, the only smaller powerpacks theyve built having originally been designed as Mercedes truck engines.

 

[ModernRailways]

There are plenty of passengers on my line calling for the 321's to be scrapped, I noticed on twitter that people are already commenting that the Nor-Lon services will get the "cast offs" from the ECML. It seems that passengers demand brand new trains. So I stand by my thinking that these will not last 30-50 years.

As far as the conspiracy theory goes, it's happened in the past.

They may want them scrapped in their current state but a good refurbishment can change that.

Take the T&W Metro refurbishment, most passengers think these are new trains, not the same old ones just with a few changes.

If a refurbishment means trains look clean and tidy, have better seating and don't look as tatty then people will like them. They only want new trains because the current ones aren't looked after very well, as in they are dirty.

And so what if they get 'cast offs', the North always gets 'cast off' units that tend to be in much worse shape than the MK4s are. I wish people would realise MK4 rakes are some of the nicest trains running inside, I'd go as far as to say they are the best! If passengers want newer trains then they should be made to foot the bill by seeing increased rail costs.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Have a gander at post #71.

Saw that. All it tells me about are the peripheral bits, not the chunky and expensive parts

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dave1987]

But in that 30-50 years would also include mid life work like the proposed 225 so actually you need to reduce that timescale if your follow your argument meaning these new IEP will last 15-35yrs.

After all arguing that replacing a train at 20 years old because it can't last as long as a new build is rather a half hearted argument to start with. Will we be discussing the replacement of the IEP in 2033 because refurbishment of them won't make them last as long as new train?

This is a very interesting and good point! We will almost certainly be having this same discussion when they are 20 years old because a shiny new train is always going to last longer than the refurbed old one. Even though the old one is only half way through its working life. A very very expensive train if in 20 years there is talk of again replacing instead of refurbishing!!

 

[transmanche]

This is a very interesting and good point! We will almost certainly be having this same discussion when they are 20 years old because a shiny new train is always going to last longer than the refurbed old one. Even though the old one is only half way through its working life. A very very expensive train if in 20 years there is talk of again replacing instead of refurbishing!!

It seems as if you're assuming that the 91s and MkIVs are heading for the scrapyard. I'm fairly confident that they won't.

It's hardly novel for stock to be cascaded during its working life - especially when something new is needed for the 'crack' expresses and the older stock can be moved on to perhaps some 'less strenuous' work. The HSTs were not half-way through their lives when replaced by the 91s & MkIVs on the ECML, with the HSTs cascaded to ICXC, etc. It's just part of the natural stock cycle.

Elsewhere, we're seeing it happen with the 319s being replaced, even though they have many years left in them - but they will find useful work elsewhere. And in turn the 319s originally replaced 317s that were barely out of nappies!

 

[Dave1987]

It seems as if you're assuming that the 91s and MkIVs are heading for the scrapyard. I'm fairly confident that they won't.

It's hardly novel for stock to be cascaded during its working life - especially when something new is needed for the 'crack' expresses and the older stock can be moved on to perhaps some 'less strenuous' work. The HSTs were not half-way through their lives when replaced by the 91s & MkIVs on the ECML, with the HSTs cascaded to ICXC, etc. It's just part of the natural stock cycle.

Elsewhere, we're seeing it happen with the 319s being replaced, even though they have many years left in them - but they will find useful work elsewhere. And in turn the 319s originally replaced 317s that were barely out of nappies!

Well only time will tell. It would be a huge waste if they were scrapped.

 

[RobShipway]

Could you not refurbish some of the MK4's into being Sleeper coaches? You could also have the MK4's replace the Mk3's on the East Anglia routes, unless as previously stated they go for Inter-City type EMU trains.

Also, I am wondering if some of the Class 91 sets could be utilised on the WCML after being refurbished and if the North Wales line to Holyhead gets electrified they would be ideal replacements for the Voyagers.

Another idea, is that some of the MK4's could be used to replace the MK3's in the HST's that will remain even after IEP has been introduced as the class 43's are compatible with the MK4 coaches.

 

[The Ham]

This is a very interesting and good point! We will almost certainly be having this same discussion when they are 20 years old because a shiny new train is always going to last longer than the refurbed old one. Even though the old one is only half way through its working life. A very very expensive train if in 20 years there is talk of again replacing instead of refurbishing!!

It is unlikely that will be the case. The argument is that we can wither retire the current 225's from the ECML and replace them with a new train which standises the fleet now, or we referbish the 225's and then run the risk that when they are fully life expired and then having a mixed fleet.

The other thing that is worth bearing in mind is that we are talking about should we have new trains or referbished trains on one of the countries priemer rail routes, which is quite a different discussion to should we have new or referbished trains on a heaverly subsidised rail route.

 

[tbtc]

It seems as if you're assuming that the 91s and MkIVs are heading for the scrapyard. I'm fairly confident that they won't.

It's hardly novel for stock to be cascaded during its working life - especially when something new is needed for the 'crack' expresses and the older stock can be moved on to perhaps some 'less strenuous' work. The HSTs were not half-way through their lives when replaced by the 91s & MkIVs on the ECML, with the HSTs cascaded to ICXC, etc. It's just part of the natural stock cycle.

Elsewhere, we're seeing it happen with the 319s being replaced, even though they have many years left in them - but they will find useful work elsewhere. And in turn the 319s originally replaced 317s that were barely out of nappies!

True. I doubt many trains will spend all of their life on the one route (apart from London Underground/ Trams).

I really don't know why some people find this so hard to understand - I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Heathrow Connect 360s will be withdrawn when newer Crossrail units replace them on that service - so why are people assuming that 91s will be withdrawn (just because newer trains are replacing them on the ECML)? Odd.

 

[anthony263]

I wouldnt be too surprised if some of the class 91's and mark 4 carriages did find their way to crosscountry for use on Manchester - Bournemouth services once the route is fully wired.

It would be cheaper than ordering some brand new electric high speed trains plus it free's up a number of class 220/221's which could provide extra capacity and new services elsewhere

 

[daikilo]

I wouldnt be too surprised if some of the class 91's and mark 4 carriages did find their way to crosscountry for use on Manchester - Bournemouth services once the route is fully wired.

It would be cheaper than ordering some brand new electric high speed trains plus it free's up a number of class 220/221's which could provide extra capacity and new services elsewhere

Earlier in the thread the operating cost of 225s was cited but not justified. Does anyone have details e.g. is it per trip or per seat, and is it driven by one or more elements of the 225 consist?

As regards 125 and 225 cascade, I have yet to see reference to how open access could play a role. Of course, this does assume that the DfT will continue to encourage (ehem) open access as a vehichle for customer choice. Who knows, maybe e.g. Porterbrook/Angel .. would be interested in sponsoring an alternative business model.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

<snip>

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.

the 225 fleet ( 91+mk 4) is a unique to the ECML relatively small fleet - about 30 sets all in ( just like the Deltics before them; a class of 22 ) ...

the other issue is where do you cascade this none standard fleet to ... part of the reason the HST has become so ubiquitous is because of the numbers of sets between the BR fleets ECML+ MML, XC and Western Region ... and the fact that although there are detail differences between HST mk3 and LH mk3s it is possible to convert the carriages to the other type if needed ( as GC did with LH to HST )...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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?

you'd need to rewire the ETS - this is why the 'surrogate DVT' class 43s needed to have their engine running when the cl91s were introduced on the ECML and ran with Mk 3 sets

 

[route:oxford]

The Mk4s could, of course, be used as trailers with new "front ends"...

If there is a production line open anyway, particularly one that is building a DMS with a 950hp engine beneath it...

Why not take two, and make up 5 or 6 car sets using Mk4 stock.

Order 100 new 802s DMSs

Get 50 5 or 6 car 156s equivalents.

The same could be done with electricity of course using any manufacturer...

 

[The Ham]

the 225 fleet ( 91+mk 4) is a unique to the ECML relatively small fleet - about 30 sets all in ( just like the Deltics before them; a class of 22 ) ...

the other issue is where do you cascade this none standard fleet to ... part of the reason the HST has become so ubiquitous is because of the numbers of sets between the BR fleets ECML+ MML, XC and Western Region ... and the fact that although there are detail differences between HST mk3 and LH mk3s it is possible to convert the carriages to the other type if needed ( as GC did with LH to HST )...

It should be noted that that although there are only 30 x 225's, there are other classes of trains where there are a similar number of sets. The best example would be the class 222's where there are only 27 sets amd the class 159's where there are 30 sers.

However if you count nuber of coaches the 222's only have 143 coaches compared with the Mark 4's where there are 302. Class 444's only have 225 coaches, whilst even a fairly prolific class of trains like the 158's only have slightly more coaches at 353.

In which case if the 225's were to be shorterned from 9 coach sets to say 7 coach sets would increase the number of sets from 30 to 43, drop it further to 6 coaches and you'd have 50 sets.

 

[HSTEd]

You can't break up the 225s into more sets without finding additional DVTs.

As I understand it the Mark 3 DVT fleet is not in the best of condition.
And then you need more locomotives.

You could justify running the trains with existing equipment, but buying significant amounts of new rolling stock to use it would be very expensive for what you get.

 

[Dave1987]

You can't break up the 225s into more sets without finding additional DVTs.

As I understand it the Mark 3 DVT fleet is not in the best of condition.
And then you need more locomotives.

You could justify running the trains with existing equipment, but buying significant amounts of new rolling stock to use it would be very expensive for what you get.

Do you think that the old trains will be going for scrap then?

 

[HSTEd]

Do you think that the old trains will be going for scrap then?

You might be able to justify keeping ~15 sets for MML duties currently performed by HSTs and some of the higher demand/less strenuous 222 diagrams, but you won't fit much more of the fleet in there.

I doubt there is any demand for the sets on the GEML because of the likely-hood that they will transistion to multiple units some time soon (the line is just too short and too slow, that it hasn't transitioned before now is very odd).

Either way I reckon a significant number of locomotives will go abroad or scrapped, with some coaches likely retained to replace Mark 2s and older Mark 3s in various niche uses (the sleeper seating vehicles perhaps?).

But a large fleet operating front line intercity services?
Not a chance.

 

[ModernRailways]

You can't break up the 225s into more sets without finding additional DVTs.

As I understand it the Mark 3 DVT fleet is not in the best of condition.
And then you need more locomotives.

You could justify running the trains with existing equipment, but buying significant amounts of new rolling stock to use it would be very expensive for what you get.

I think what some people have meant by splitting them up is removing the need for the 91/DVT and making the MK4 carriages into units. It could work but a high cost.

 

[Dave1987]

You might be able to justify keeping ~15 sets for MML duties currently performed by HSTs and some of the higher demand/less strenuous 222 diagrams, but you won't fit much more of the fleet in there.

I doubt there is any demand for the sets on the GEML because of the likely-hood that they will transistion to multiple units some time soon (the line is just too short and too slow, that it hasn't transitioned before now is very odd).

Either way I reckon a significant number of locomotives will go abroad or scrapped, with some coaches likely retained to replace Mark 2s and older Mark 3s in various niche uses (the sleeper seating vehicles perhaps?).

But a large fleet operating front line intercity services?
Not a chance.

So a fleet that is only half way through its life is likely to be scrapped. That is a huge waste isn't it. One thing I hate is seeing trains that we labelled as life expired working perfectly well in other countries. How much money do we have to waste before we use the assets we already have properly before spending huge domes of money on shiny new trains. And again no doubt in 20 years time the dft will be bored of these and consign them to the scrap heap for yet another shiny new train.

 

[JamesRowden]

You might be able to justify keeping ~15 sets for MML duties currently performed by HSTs and some of the higher demand/less strenuous 222 diagrams, but you won't fit much more of the fleet in there.

I doubt there is any demand for the sets on the GEML because of the likely-hood that they will transistion to multiple units some time soon (the line is just too short and too slow, that it hasn't transitioned before now is very odd).

Either way I reckon a significant number of locomotives will go abroad or scrapped, with some coaches likely retained to replace Mark 2s and older Mark 3s in various niche uses (the sleeper seating vehicles perhaps?).

But a large fleet operating front line intercity services?
Not a chance.

If Sheffield to Doncaster was added to Midland Mainline electrification, it would seem like a fairly good idea to run a Reading-Oxford-Bedford-Sheffield-Doncaster-Edinburgh Cross Country service that would require electric intercity stock. It would also mean that the Reading-Birmingham-Newcastle service could be made to only run north of Birmingham (or redirected to Bristol if there is capacity) and another new electric Crosscountry service could put in its place between Reading and a West Coast Mainline destination.

 

[The Ham]

Of course if the Mark 4's are used on a line with a top speed of 100mph then a DVT may not be needed, if it is possible to put a cab with the relevent controls in the end coach. Of course this will come at a cost.

That is assuming that the Mark 4's have another 20 years of life left so, given the leasing costs of a EMU coach, there could be a fairly large budget to referbish them and still allow the ROSCO's to recoup their costs.