Disposal Of IC225s

[CosherB]

No but they need updated stock lol

Wakey wakey, haven't you heard the news regarding the new AGA franchise?

 

[glbotu]

There've been a number of posts that suggest that my post was suggesting something different from what my intent was, let me clarify.

1. I don't think there's anything wrong with rolling stock from the '80s, although I notably said that the greatest success was Mk3 multiple units, which have been an unquestionable success, which can be highly attributed to their flexibility. You can even put in the Class 158, which is certainly an excellent train which is only really unsuited to intensive commuter operation (and is a bit slow for the fastest long-distance services).

2. There's also nothing wrong with building a train for a specific purpose. The IC 225s and the Class 442s have lived decent lives on their respective routes and have done a great service, but it does mean that when it comes to their replacement on those routes, it has to be accepted that scrambling to squeeze them into other routes is going to be a particularly fruitful endeavour. I mean, compared to something like the Voyager, which has no place anywhere, these are great trains. But looking at something like the Class 170, which are pretty much go-anywhere, decent dwell times, 100mph top speed, sprinter differentials, the works, you have to see that that's going to be much easier to re-house if someone comes along and puts something shiny on its route.

The important point to take away from this is that while it may seem like a shame to waste potentially 10 years of the lifetime of a train, if it's spec is too narrow, it may just not make it all the way to the second peak of its bathtub curve and maybe that's not the worst thing ever.

 

[D365]

The important point to take away from this is that while it may seem like a shame to waste potentially 10 years of the lifetime of a train, if it's spec is too narrow, it may just not make it all the way to the second peak of its bathtub curve and maybe that's not the worst thing ever.

There isn't ten years of lifetime left. The Class 91 were designed with a 30 year lifespan and they are now approaching the end of that. Mk4s were designed specifically in conjunction, so while money could be spent adapting them as general-purpose LHCS, what would be the point.

 

[Brian Aylott]

Who's to say that those HST's will not receive the required modifications and then be moved on once the route is electrified? Don't forgot that the Norwich route has seen it's Mk3's modified to comply with the new standards and yet we now know that they are due to be replaced by new stock.

The Anglia MK3s haven't been modified to comply with the new standards
Brian

 

[Haydn1971]

You would still have all the negative publicity of diesels running under the wires even though people have suffered disruption / noise during the night supposedly to replace those diesels. Surely you understand how the media operate in this country? In all fairness from my experience capacity isn't an issue on the MML. The fact that those Mk4s would be loco hauled would be irrelevant to the average passenger but you can guarantee that the media would go to town over second hand trains.

I deal with the media on a regular basis, play the game not the man

Back to the issue, diesel under wires would be for a short period only, Sheffield gets wires in 2022, that could drift with the current project drifts, WCML south of Birmingham is effectively replaced by HS2 in 2026. That's just four years of running diesels under wires, not a lifetime. HS2 is highly likely as a project to run on programme schedule unlike online projects on existing track.

Who's to say that those HST's will not receive the required modifications and then be moved on once the route is electrified? Don't forgot that the Norwich route has seen it's Mk3's modified to comply with the new standards and yet we now know that they are due to be replaced by new stock.

As pointed out by others, it's very costly and timescales are running short for doing this work, the current franchise isn't going to care, the following franchise will have 18 months to convert 12 sets of HSTs that would be replaced by EMUs in 2022 in your vision of the MML - I'd love to see new units, but we have the intervening period of DDA compliance by 2020 and no wires to Sheffield until 2022 at the earliest, unless the next franchise get a half fleet for Leicester services and cross their fingers that wires reach Leicester before DDA compliance date hits, running 222s to places where wires have yet to reach - personally, I'd not like to run a business on that kinda time constraints imposed on me by a third party.

What reason is there to suggest that you couldn't get 30 years use out of EMU's on the MML? Assuming that MML follow the lead that was taken on the Norwich all those HST's and Meridians will be gone by the mid 2020's and the EMU's start running. That can be no guarantee that a TOC would want those Pendolino's / IC225s once they are displaced; a precedent has now been set where TOC's are winning franchises and then ordering brand new fleets.

Just to reiterate, HSTs cannot run after 2020 without huge upgrades. There is a current issue with manufacturers being able to build units fast enough, MML would be at the back of the queue. A new franchise may not "want" to take on old stock, but the reality is that there are pressing issues with HSTs being non compliant, project drift on wires to Sheffield, increased costs for smaller fleets if EMUs are purchased for each extension north, hell, there may even be a situation where one type of unit comes to Leicester, a different type to East Midlands, a third to Sheffield... That's a worse case scenario though

The Mk4s aren't ideal, but are available for work post AT300 deployment on the ECML, dozens of 390s become available in 2026, hmm... That's gonna be a very attractive option for a franchise, cheaper than new, means more money back to DfT in the agreement...

You are suggesting that it would be difficult to fit 8 car EMU's into Sheffield before returning south and yet you are suggesting that a full length IC225 wouldn't be a problem? Which begs the question; what's the difference?

You could currently accommodate a single long train for a half hour layover, it would be difficult to accommodate a number of them without significant works at Sheffield - plus a platform, perhaps two may be lost to HS2 CC services from 2032, perhaps earlier... It's clear that a major rebuild is needed at Sheffield for both MML and HS2 services, whilst accommodating increasingly long TPE units.

It was mentioned in a PDF document which I saw on the internet some years a go, however I don't have the time to go looking for it. If you look at the issues surrounding Toton unless you live in the western Nottingham suburbs it makes no sense to use it. And I can't think of anyone traveling to the centre of either Nottingham or Derby wanting to travel to Toton because of the inconvenience. In terms of traveling from Derby to Toton the A52 is chronic in the mornings and it isn't going to get any better. The M1 is flowing freely at the moment in the East Midlands thanks to all the improvements but
give it another 15 years and it will have surely filled up again making it more difficult to access Toton.

That's a whole different topic drift... It's clear that significant works on the highways, tram and heavy rail network are required to make Toton work.

You maybe familiar with the long running Practice & Performance series in Railway Magazine. A couple of years a go (and after the improvements had been largely completed on the MML) the magazine timed some runs between Sheffied and London. From what I recall the Meridians were being run at full line speed including 125 mph running from Cricklewood to north of Bedford. All this suggests that those EMU's are reaching their maximum speed much quicker than the EMT services and so are not holding them up. Indeed the same thing happens at the southern end of the ECML.

Interestingly a fellow forum member posted up thread that a 2hr service between St Pancras and Sheffield (current fastest services) ran at 125mph for just 7.5 minutes...

It's also worth noting that Network Rail are having to make costly modifications to the existing wires between London and Bedford in order to allow 125 mph running. The point I'm making is that they wouldn't be going to all of that expense unless sustained 125 mph running was possible.

And TPE are building new 125mph trains to run across the Pennines on much slower track... Line speed, train ability and actual speed of schedule services are not always in synergy with each other.

Who want to buy a fleet of diesels which only have guaranteed work for five to six years with no real prospect of work after that? As opposed to an EMU which will give you 30 years of use. Given that we are told that a class 67 struggles to get to 125 mph that is not much of a solution. Someone has suggested that you could run a class 67 at either end but what modifications would you need to make to those Mk4s to allow it?

And as I keep reiterating, 125mph line does not mean that trains run at 125mph all the time, better low down acceleration performance with a lower headline speed could go a long way to closing that gap to a level that doesn't really matter - that said, given the diesel locos under wires hauling Mk4s will make up just 12 units, alongside 27x class 222s and half a dozen "387 type" EMUs for Corby, the reality of the problem is that only a quarter of the fleet would be "constrained" by these limitations, if it transpires that there are any deficiencies in the actual performance.

 

[edwin_m]

And TPE are building new 125mph trains to run across the Pennines on much slower track... Line speed, train ability and actual speed of schedule services are not always in synergy with each other.

And as I keep reiterating, 125mph line does not mean that trains run at 125mph all the time, better low down acceleration performance with a lower headline speed could go a long way to closing that gap to a level that doesn't really matter - that said, given the diesel locos under wires hauling Mk4s will make up just 12 units, alongside 27x class 222s and half a dozen "387 type" EMUs for Corby, the reality of the problem is that only a quarter of the fleet would be "constrained" by these limitations, if it transpires that there are any deficiencies in the actual performance.

You're right in principle, 125mph 222s haven't been able to do that speed until recently. But in your specific example of TPE, these trains will do 125mph for significant distances on the ECML north of York.

 

[Haydn1971]

Meanwhile....

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ter Sep 16 wk 3&dm_i=IJS,4HNPF,6TJ555,GL8XE,1

Bi-mode fleet needed by 2020, says major East Midlands rail strategy
A new fleet of intercity-style bi-mode trains is needed to deliver a greater level of service as part of the upcoming 2018 East Midlands franchise, according to the results of a consultation into the future of the region's rail network.
The vision for rail travel in the East Midlands, set out today in a major strategy, includes much faster and more frequent journeys, with trains from London reaching Leicester in one hour, Nottingham in 90 minutes and Sheffield in one hour and 50 minutes.
The report, ‘East Midlands: A Railway for Growth’, was launched today at the Rail Forum East Midlands (RFEM) annual conference, attended by RTM, following a consultation with key local stakeholders.
It says that the best solution to delivering a new London service that still stops at all the stations along the route is a fleet of new bi-mode trains, capable of travelling at 125mph.
They should replace the current fleet of high-speed trains, which will need retirement in 2020, and feature improved accessibility, better on-board wi-fi and greater capacity.
In addition, the report said a plan to secure more trains for regional services is needed before 2020 in order to reduce the current overcrowding on the route.
It called for "urgent decisions" to be made on the rolling stock used on the Midland Main Line, and "a firm plan and funding" to secure rolling stock for regional services.
Jake Kelly, managing director for East Midlands Trains, said: “We are at a critical crossroads for rail services in the East Midlands and we have a great opportunity to work together now to secure the improvements needed for this railway.
“The message we are hearing from local stakeholders is very clear: if we are to build on the big progress made in recent years, we need to take action to ensure communities and the economy in the East Midlands benefit from further improvements and we don't lose out to other regions.
“Whilst there are major improvement plans with HS2 and electrification that we fully support, the proposals we have put together with our stakeholders would deliver fast improvements for our customers and communities whilst offering value for money for the taxpayer.
“We need to be loud and proud about the improvements that we would like to see and that our customers deserve. Now is the time to ensure that new trains and extra carriages can be secured for this rail network.”
Sir John Peace, chair of Midlands Engine and Midlands Connect, which helped launch the report, said that while approval for HS2 was “eagerly awaited” in the region, there was “clearly a need now for more and faster trains” in the region, which the new strategy would address.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

One big question for HS2 is whether people will choose to use it or the old (existing) lines. If the fares for trains on HS2 are too expensive then people might stick with the old routes and so more stock would be needed on the old routes.

 

[D365]

If the fares for trains on HS2 are too expensive then people might stick with the old routes and so more stock would be needed on the old routes.

You're starting to sound quite cynical. Despite what others may choose to believe, I don't think that's the intention of building a new line.

 

[The Ham]

The one way I could see Mark 4's being used on the MML is as follows:

Reduce the rake length to (say) 6 or 7 coaches, use to run off peak services currently run by 222s (in doing so it increases capacity or at least nearly matches capacity if there were a 6 coach train formed of Mark 4's vs a 7 coach 222).

Use the freed up 222s to run in pairs (as required, as the coach 222s could for some services be long enough on their own) to replace the HSTs. Given that EMTs may not need to run to Leeds (or only as a single shorter 222) that could mean that you do not need to release enough 222s to replace all (or enough of all that it doesn't matter) the HSTs with double length trains (i.e. 2x222).

It could be that no double length trains have to travel north of (say) East Midlands Parkway or Derby) which could further reduce the need for so many 222s to be released by Mark 4 trains.

If the loco on the Mark 4's could only run at up to 100mph it would only be on some services, but with the shorter rake length it could well be that they can nearly keep to the timetable of a 222 (or close enough that there is no need to change the timetable).

Then once 2020 comes around start to introduce new 80x's or wait until 2022 and start to bring in EMUs (or do both, keeping some/all of the 222s until enough new units are acquired to allow them to go elsewhere, with the 222s being the last units to be kept). In doing so the maximum number of Mark 4's and locos may only need to be in use for a year, with the possibility of them then going to XC (or most other franchises) if they then want them.

 

[najaB]

If the fares for trains on HS2 are too expensive...

Why would HS2 fares be expensive? It'll be a brand new (i.e. cheaper to run) railway with bags of capacity.

 

[gsnedders]

Why would HS2 fares be expensive? It'll be a brand new (i.e. cheaper to run) railway with bags of capacity.

Presumably the assumption is in some attempt to recoup the construction costs.

 

[najaB]

Presumably the assumption is in some attempt to recoup the construction costs.

Which would be best done by 'piling them high and selling them cheap'.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Loco+Mk4 rakes would be slower, heavier and less capacious than a new fleet of AT300s. All three of those things make them less than suitable for use on the MML, even if their leasing costs would be minimal. Hitachi are now producing AT300 sets at a very competitive price and with demand for long-term safe investments being so high, it seems almost certain that someone will be willing to stump up the capital to build a fleet of them. The 2020 deadline is still just an arbitrary date and having a derogation for a few months isn't going to make anyone too unhappy, especially when a large percentage of the services are already run by compliant units.

 

[Haydn1971]

Loco+Mk4 rakes would be slower, heavier and less capacious than a new fleet of AT300s. All three of those things make them less than suitable for use on the MML, even if their leasing costs would be minimal.

Agreed, completely, I've only ever seen them as a short term stop gap to either cascaded 390s or new EMUs, to get around the post 2020 gap.

Hitachi are now producing AT300 sets at a very competitive price and with demand for long-term safe investments being so high, it seems almost certain that someone will be willing to stump up the capital to build a fleet of them.

Perhaps a speculative order by a ROSCO, similar to the recent 387 fleet purchase.

The 2020 deadline is still just an arbitrary date and having a derogation for a few months isn't going to make anyone too unhappy, especially when a large percentage of the services are already run by compliant units.

It's easy to say that when you are fully able bodied, when you are in a wheelchair, have poor vision, pushing a wheelchair or child buggy, or some other condition/situation that limits you ability to travel you may have a different opinion. It's high time we stopped putting off the inevitable and made our railways able to cope with the needs of all users.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Agreed, completely, I've only ever seen them as a short term stop gap to either cascaded 390s or new EMUs, to get around the post 2020 gap.

Someone who already works for EMT has already mentioned that the HSTs are to be life extended.

 

[Haydn1971]

Someone who already works for EMT has already mentioned that the HSTs are to be life extended.

Yeah I noted that Hairybear said that, has anything been officially announced ? Will this be the current franchise that does this ?

 

[Hairy Bear]

Yeah I noted that Hairybear said that, has anything been officially announced ? Will this be the current franchise that does this ?

Only if they win the next franchise which ends March' 18.
No doubt Porterbrook will expect the new new franchisee to pay for the mods even though they own them.
And it was an internal memo about 6 weeks ago

 

[Haydn1971]

Only if they win the next franchise which ends March' 18.

No doubt Porterbrook will expect the new new franchisee to pay for the mods even though they own them.

And it was an internal memo about 6 weeks ago

So the options are still very much open really.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

why not fit the IC225 / Mk4 fleet with the tilting bogies they were designed for and use them on the WCML along with the 91's? If used mainly north of Crewe, they would allow the Pendolinos to be concentrated on Euston-Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham routes without the IC225s getting in the way. The IC225 fleet would handle Manchester/Liverpool/Brum to Scotland, and maybe Glasgow-Euston (non-stop south of Crewe). That way the inferior IC225 acceleration would not be a problem.

But there aren't any such tilting bogies.
The only tilt capability built into Mk4s is the body profile.
Tilt activation and management systems are also required and probably many other technical changes.
By the time you've designed and built those systems to fit the obsolescent and unique Mk4 design, you'd be better off buying new trains.
I expect the IPR for Mk4s lies with Alstom (they were built by GEC-Alsthom).
But I'm sure they would prefer to sell you some new Pendolinos.

 

[sd0733]

Once they are retiring from ECML duties they will be around 30 years old , it's not as if they are modern trains really and they've had some pretty hard work day in day out for those years. They are a fairly small fleet which were built for a purpose, look at the similar fleet of deltics the 225s life span will be approx 50% longer than those managed. Unless a use is found like virgin are with limited stop use then The market for a slow accelerating train is almost none in a high performance MU operated railway.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Once they are retiring from ECML duties they will be around 30 years old , it's not as if they are modern trains really and they've had some pretty hard work day in day out for those years. They are a fairly small fleet which were built for a purpose, look at the similar fleet of deltics the 225s life span will be approx 50% longer than those managed. Unless a use is found like virgin are with limited stop use then The market for a slow accelerating train is almost none in a high performance MU operated railway.

I expect we'll see the 6-8 Virgin want for limited stops to last a few years until an add-on class 801 order is placed. I really hope we don't end up with a XC or MML situation where HSTs weren't fully replaced, leaving a mixed fleet of varying performance and quality.

 

[randyrippley]

But there aren't any such tilting bogies.

They were designed to use the APT bogies, for which the drawings must exist and for which a modern upgraded version would surely work.

 

[coppercapped]

They were designed to use the APT bogies, for which the drawings must exist and for which a modern upgraded version would surely work.

That is the first time I have ever read that - you do realise that the APT was articulated and the Mk4s are not? The Mk4s are fitted with Swiss SIG bogies originally laid out for 140mph running. In modern parlance the trains were 'future proofed' by having been built with a tapered body to allow tilting as the original intention was to use them on the curvaceous West Coast main line.

 

[cjmillsnun]

They were designed to use the APT bogies, for which the drawings must exist and for which a modern upgraded version would surely work.

As already stated no they weren't. Also why bother when they will be nearly 30 years old?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I expect we'll see the 6-8 Virgin want for limited stops to last a few years until an add-on class 801 order is placed. I really hope we don't end up with a XC or MML situation where HSTs weren't fully replaced, leaving a mixed fleet of varying performance and quality.

I think many would prefer the HSTs in those cases. The 22x are really not ageing well at all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[randyrippley]

That is the first time I have ever read that - you do realise that the APT was articulated and the Mk4s are not? The Mk4s are fitted with Swiss SIG bogies originally laid out for 140mph running. In modern parlance the trains were 'future proofed' by having been built with a tapered body to allow tilting as the original intention was to use them on the curvaceous West Coast main line.

The APT-P was partially articulated. The leading bogie under the driving trailer wasn't, nor was the bogie in the trailer adjacent to the power cars. Those non-articulated bogies - or a variant of them - were intended for retrofit to the Mk4 when they cascaded to the WCML (after the intended purchase of new stock for the ECML). Class91/Mk4 was intended only ever as a stopgap on the east coast.

 

[The Ham]

Someone who already works for EMT has already mentioned that the HSTs are to be life extended.

Surely it would be cheaper to propose to run a suitable loco (100mph) with 5 or 6 coaches (Mark 4) and a DVT from about 2019 to about 2021 (say 10 to 18 months) to free up 222s and then use the 222s to replace the HSTs and then replace the whole fleet with 80x's once there's capacity to build them.

By having fewer carriages then the acceleration wouldn't be as bad as the current 9 coaches, meaning that most of the difference would be down to top speed. Yes there would be some services that would run a few minutes slower, but not all and maybe not that different to the HSTs if the acceleration curve is marginally better.

With any disbenefits for a limited time period.

Otherwise you are potentially"stuck with" the costly upgrade to the HSTs coaches, which you'd either need to wright off or keep for some time to "recoup" your investment.

On the plus side you gain coaches that will have only had a refurbishment in the last few years and have a fairly limited list of future uses. The ROSCO would probably bite of the hand of someone offering to lease them for a short period, unless GWR are interested, as most of the other franchises that could be vaguely interested would be in a position to take them before 2020 anyway. By early 2020 EMT could be in a position to start to release them again anyway, or at the very least sub leasing them.

 

[Haydn1971]

Surely it would be cheaper to propose to run a suitable loco (100mph) with 5 or 6 coaches (Mark 4) and a DVT from about 2019 to about 2021 (say 10 to 18 months) to free up 222s and then use the 222s to replace the HSTs and then replace the whole fleet with 80x's once there's capacity to build them.



By having fewer carriages then the acceleration wouldn't be as bad as the current 9 coaches, meaning that most of the difference would be down to top speed. Yes there would be some services that would run a few minutes slower, but not all and maybe not that different to the HSTs if the acceleration curve is marginally better.



With any disbenefits for a limited time period.



Otherwise you are potentially"stuck with" the costly upgrade to the HSTs coaches, which you'd either need to wright off or keep for some time to "recoup" your investment.



On the plus side you gain coaches that will have only had a refurbishment in the last few years and have a fairly limited list of future uses. The ROSCO would probably bite of the hand of someone offering to lease them for a short period, unless GWR are interested, as most of the other franchises that could be vaguely interested would be in a position to take them before 2020 anyway. By early 2020 EMT could be in a position to start to release them again anyway, or at the very least sub leasing them.

Exactly my view, it's clear the Class 91s are doomed, but the Mk4s have many years left in them. There isn't enough time after the franchise renewal to start faffing with modifying Mk3s or for an order of AT300s to reach service. Plus as I've mentioned above, there's also the possibility of 390s coming free towards the end of the franchise due to HS2 displacement. I'm hopeful for new stock, looking forward to seeing what the franchise tender specification proposes, but remain sceptical of new vs older stock benefits and costs, especially when the timing for Mk4s availability tie in so well.

 

[Failed Unit]

I would agree, I suspect that mk4s will make thier way into charter operators or even franchised operators looking for mk3 train replacement.

One thing that we will never know is what open access operators view on them will be.

I don't they would use WCML as they can't use enhanced speed limits, but virgin may find them competing against themselves on the east. London - Bristol open access?