so bi-modal is bad for EC and most of GW but not WC?
No, that's not the point I was trying to make. Bi-mode is bad on most Intercity routes. I was trying to use the fact Virgin have or had plans to replace Voyagers with dragged EMUs to support my argument that dragged EMUs is a viable solution to the problem of partially electrified routes. This despite Virgin's circumstances being less favorable to dragging EMUs than East Coast's.
Anybody would think that the way you talk that there will be loads hybrid IEP on the East Coast when in reality the majority will be electric and those that are hybrid will be roughly equivalent to 18 HST's (13 nine car and 5 x 2 five car) as opposed to the 15 HST's the East Coast is currently using.
East Coast's fleet is 14 IC125s isn't it? Of those 14, 13 are diagramed, of those 13, 3 spend the entire diagram under the wires. So IEP brings an increase in the number of trains for diesel routes despite the current operator having a shortage of electrics and having to use diesels to make up for it.
you can talk to Network Rail about blocking their platforms for 10 to 15 min's while you mess about trying to attach a Loco.
It will not take 10 to 15 minutes the couple a loco to an EMU. The nine minutes claimed by the department for transport would probably be enough to take an electric loco off a train and replace it with a diesel one, assuming they have suitable fast couplers. How fast did the spec say an IEP should be able to couple/decouple to another IEP? You just need to fit the loco with a suitable coupler so the IEP thinks the loco is another IEP.
Who are "they"?
Where have they said this?
The department for transport, in announcing that IC225s would be replaced by IEPs on the East Coast. In my opinion, that effectively means 91s will be scrapped (or, if they're lucky, preserved or exported), as I cannot see them being useful elsewhere in the UK given that Great Western is also getting IEPs for all it's electrified routes.
This opinion is based on information I have read on here in the past, that class 90s (110mph top speed) can keep time on some East Coast services with more stops. Therefore, I doubt a 91 will be able to keep time on any route currently served by class 90s or high-powered DMUs (Voyager family, 185 etc.) unless there is potential for significant amounts of linespeeds in excess of 120mph.
That rules out:
- London to Norwich (max speed 110mph, or maybe even less)
- Liverpool to Newcastle (not much, if any, running over 110mph)
- Manchester to Glasgow/ Edinburgh? (if there's anything over 110mph on the WCML, it is for tilting trains only)
Sheffield/Nottingham to London has just recevied some 125mph running, but is it going to be enough to enable a 91+9+DVT to keep to class 222 timings? Manchester to Southampton I don't know, is there any potential for 125mph running without tilt? I doubt it.
Also is the 225's were to be reduced in length by 1 coach then the acceleration issue would be less of a problem.
Indeed, that might actually tip the balance. But, might you need the capacity provided by the coach you take out? And what would you do with the 30 extra spare coaches? Not enough to replace the London-Norwich mark3s, but you might find the odd job for them.
No it's not kinda the point. The whole point of wiring to Weston in the eyes of its advocates here is to remove the need for bi-modes to be built, but without a bi-mode you can't run through to or from Taunton and Devon...
Two points:
- No, not quite my point. My point was wire to Weston-Super-Mare to reduce the number of bi-modes that need to be built, (as opposed to eliminating them entirely) rather than building more bi-modes and using it as an excuse not to electrify to Weston-Super-Mare in the 2020-2024 control period.
- You can still run services to Taunton and Devon/Cornwall, use an IC125 via Westbury (as they are planning to do anyway).
Weston is really a bit of a red herring when it comes to electrification, because of its supposed 'London' services, which are largely about meeting local commuting needs.
But you need the long train right? You couldn't replace the London service with a Taunton-Bristol 166/165 or 180 service could you? An hourly 8-coach Intercity service is enough to justify electrification (provided the stretch to be electrified isn't too long) in my view.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Why buy new traction when the 91's are proven to work with the Mk4's ?
Because, as has been said previously, they are a small class, to an unusual design, expensive to maintain, and the first ones built will be 30 years old by the time IEP arrives on the East Coast. The very reasons that their owner has contemplated buying new locomotives to replace them.
Personally, I think the reasons Eversholt are offering an option of replacing the 91s with TraXX (alongside a class 91 refurbishment option) are actually:
- the 91's comparatively sluggish acceleration and
- (possibly) regenerative brakes (which, sadly, I assume they have decided isn't worth fitting to a 91 for the 10-15yrs they would likely continue for if Eversholt's refurbishment option is implemented).
If I recall correctly, there was a peice in Modern Railways indicating that the full IEP would raise East Coast's rolling stock costs so much that it might wipe out the profits/premiums East Coast current makes completely. If 91s are expensive to maintain (and why would they be more expensive to maintain than anything else?) then I don't like to think what word you could use in place of 'expensive' to refer to IEP.
