InterCity 125s for parcels traffic

[AnonymousUser1]

You don't necessarily need roller shutters really. You can load surprisingly large bags of parcels through holes the size and shape of the windows.

Manual handing ops regs obvously passed you by....for the past 25 years...

 

[HSTEd]

Manual handing ops regs obvously passed you by....for the past 25 years...

Who said anything about manual handling?
I am the one famous for insane technological solutions.

You can install roller ramps on the inside of the vehicle, slide the package in from a properly designed bridge on the trackside, then roll it down to the floor of the vehicle.


Anyway, wouldn't it be easier to just use 317/321/319s that will soon to be surplus to requirements?
They already have wide full height doors.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If it were to happen Mk3 stock would be better then mk4 stock as if high sided trollies were used, you'd loose a fair bit of space on a mk4 to the body profile

 

[najaB]

Anyway, wouldn't it be easier to just use 317/321/319s that will soon to be surplus to requirements?

But you lose the 125mph top speed which means that pathing is that little bit more difficult on the ECML (especially after 140mph running commences).

 

[The Planner]

How often are these things stopping? if they aren't you could fit them in with less hassle.

 

[Mag_seven]

They should keep the 125's for passenger use as long as they can. Cross Country could use them instead of forcing us on to crappy Voyagers.

 

[CosherB]

What about redundant class 317s for this sort of work? The bodyshells already have large apertures for the sliding doors so could simply be be replaced by roller shutters, rather than having to create new large holes. Some could remain as EMUs while others could be split up to provide fixed sets of trailers to sandwich between power cars, with a driver trailer function using the ex EMU cabs for flexible operation of short or part trains with a single power car. Presumably existing bogies would not be suitable for 125MPH, but might be modifiable or exchanged for ex Mk3 ones?

And the costs would be what? Extortionate?!

 

[HSTEd]

But you lose the 125mph top speed which means that pathing is that little bit more difficult on the ECML (especially after 140mph running commences).

And when will that be?
At the end of time itself?

140mph running is pretty much dead on the GWML and like the ECML as well.
And how much would there actually be on these proposed routes that is not on a four track railway?

 

[najaB]

And when will that be?
At the end of time itself?

140mph running is pretty much dead on the GWML and like the ECML as well.

The only thing stopping 140mph operation on the ECML is the lack of in-cab signalling. It's true that the 'big bang' ETCS Level 2 rollout is currently under review, but it is going to happen.

 

[43096]

It's true that the 'big bang' ETCS Level 2 rollout is currently under review, but it is going to happen.

"Going to happen" as in actually going to happen, or a Network Rail "going to happen", in the same sense as "electrification to Bath and Bristol is going to happen"?

 

[najaB]

"Going to happen" as in actually going to happen, or a Network Rail "going to happen", in the same sense as "electrification to Bath and Bristol is going to happen"?

Going to happen in that there's a lot of obsolescent S&T equipment with limited lifespan that will need to be replaced.

 

[dubscottie]

So you've seen the engineering studies that back that assertion up, have you?

It was well reported in the railway press at the time (mid to late 90's if IIRC)

 

[The Planner]

Going to happen in that there's a lot of obsolescent S&T equipment with limited lifespan that will need to be replaced.

You will be amazed at the "life extension" works we will manage to do if it means not having to shell out for a big bang.

 

[43096]

It was well reported in the railway press at the time (mid to late 90's if IIRC)

So you haven't seen them. On the other hand, detailed engineering designs exist for the conversion work required.

 

[najaB]

You will be amazed at the "life extension" works we will manage to do if it means not having to shell out for a big bang.

Oh, I know it (look at semaphores still in operation!) - but there comes a point where it's cheaper to just get on with it. The fact that there are committed ETCS implementations hitting the ground already means that a lot of the expensive stuff has already been done.

What I can see happening is isolated Level 1 implementations in order to replace the electronics (new electronics controlling existing signals), and Level 2 being rolled out to link the islands of Level 1 to upgrade entire routes.

 

[dubscottie]

So you haven't seen them. On the other hand, detailed engineering designs exist for the conversion work required.

How do you know? Have you seen them? Who did them?

Please do share.

 

[43096]

How do you know? Have you seen them? Who did them?



Please do share.

From a reputable source.

Put it this way, do you think GBRf would have announced something if it wasn't technically do-able?

 

[dubscottie]

From a reputable source.

Put it this way, do you think GBRf would have announced something if it wasn't technically do-able?

I never said it was not possible for HST sets to be used for parcels.

What I and others have said is sticking roller shutter doors 325 style or in the middle of a MK3 is a no go without major, major structural problems.

While not impossible to overcome, you would want very, very deep pockets.

The whole body side would need reskined, the number of horizontal and vertical tophat sections doubled, floor and roof reinforced etc,etc.


A MK4 would be simpler to reinforce but the opening in the side could be no wider than a window.

The existing doors could be widened with ease to a point.

And yes, I have experience in such matters

 

[HSTEd]

The only thing stopping 140mph operation on the ECML is the lack of in-cab signalling. It's true that the 'big bang' ETCS Level 2 rollout is currently under review, but it is going to happen.

And unless it happens soon there will never be any reason to do it.
If it doesn't happen before HS2-2 does, it will never happen.
Because HS2 will explode the business case.

And all this assumes any proper ETCS Layout on the ECML ever actually happens - 140mph running has already been jettisoned on the Great Western.

 

[Metrailway]

And unless it happens soon there will never be any reason to do it.
If it doesn't happen before HS2-2 does, it will never happen.
Because HS2 will explode the business case.

And all this assumes any proper ETCS Layout on the ECML ever actually happens - 140mph running has already been jettisoned on the Great Western.

Or conversely a 140mph ECML will undermine the business case for HS2 (phase 2).

At 140mph, King's Cross to Leeds, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh would be quicker than taking HS2 from Euston.
Therefore, fewer business travellers (who provide the majority of income for Long distance flows) will choose HS2 over the ECML.

Ultimately, this would have a significant impact on the BCR of HS2. One of the reasons the BCR for HS2 is low compared to similar schemes in Europe is due to the extensive 125mph InterCity network we already have in place here in the UK.

Remember the current HS2 hybrid bill in Parliament is only for phase 1. Two new hybrid bills (one after the other) have to be introduced for Phase 2a and Phase 2b.

Is the industry going to undermine something it has campaigned for for several years? I doubt it

 

[najaB]

Or conversely a 140mph ECML will undermine the business case for HS2 (phase 2).

At 140mph, King's Cross to Leeds, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh would be quicker than taking HS2 from Euston.

Not all of the ECML is suitable for 140mph running. In total there's something like 135 miles, all south of York suitable for greater than 125mph (though not all 140mph). If we assume that all 135 miles is currently run at 125 mph and it's all upgraded to 140mph that results in a time savings of approximately seven minutes.

Hardly going to kill HS2.

 

[Metrailway]

Not all of the ECML is suitable for 140mph running. In total there's something like 135 miles, all south of York suitable for greater than 125mph (though not all 140mph). If we assume that all 135 miles is currently run at 125 mph and it's all upgraded to 140mph that results in a time savings of approximately seven minutes.

Hardly going to kill HS2.

Yes, you only need 20 odd miles of 140mph running on the ECML for timings to beat HS2.

With an IC125 running at 140 mph only in the Peterborough area, BR managed to get Newcastle to Kings Cross down to 2hrs 20 (1 minute slower than HS2 predicted times) in the 80s.

Virgin have also modelled that a 140mph ECML Kings Cross to Edinburgh will be quicker than HS2.

 

[najaB]

Yes, you only need 20 odd miles of 140mph running on the ECML for timings to beat HS2.

According to the Government, HS2 reduces the Newcastle-London journey time by 32 minutes. 20 miles of 140mph v 125mph running isn't going to net you a half hour time saving. That's simple maths.

 

[najaB]

Another bit of simple maths...

140mph is 12% faster than 125mph. If you reduce the current Edinburgh-London time by 12% (which assumes that speeds are increased along the whole route) you get a journey time of 3h 52m - which is still longer than the 3h 40m that HS2 gives you.

If I'm wrong I'd appreciate a pointer to the correct information.

 

[takno]

Another bit of simple maths...

140mph is 12% faster than 125mph. If you reduce the current Edinburgh-London time by 12% (which assumes that speeds are increased along the whole route) you get a journey time of 3h 52m - which is still longer than the 3h 40m that HS2 gives you.

If I'm wrong I'd appreciate a pointer to the correct information.

Isn't the acceleration profile of the Azumas supposed to be knocking another 12-15 minutes off the journey time? If so it seems you get there quite comfortably

 

[najaB]

Isn't the acceleration profile of the Azumas supposed to be knocking another 12-15 minutes off the journey time? If so it seems you get there quite comfortably

Yes, if you assume that the entire route is being upgraded to be 12% faster (it's not) and that you'll save 15 minutes per trip (actually closer to 10 minutes) then I suppose so.

But if you assume that pigs have wings then they might be capable of flight after all.

 

[43096]

Isn't the acceleration profile of the Azumas supposed to be knocking another 12-15 minutes off the journey time? If so it seems you get there quite comfortably

Assuming there is enough power in the knitting and the wires stay in the sky rather than falling on the ground...

 

[glbotu]

Not all of the ECML is suitable for 140mph running. In total there's something like 135 miles, all south of York suitable for greater than 125mph (though not all 140mph).

The dead straight, 32 mile, stretch of track from Northallerton to York disagrees with you.

Your point stands though. Additionally, you have to think about the pathing constraints of the "headline figure" for the ECML. Yes, you could achieve some pretty high speeds by running a "Flying Scotsman" service, but you can't fit more than 9* or so LDHS trains per hour between Newark and London if you do.

*I think it was 9 from the ECML RUS, it's been a while since I read it.

 

[najaB]

The dead straight, 32 mile, stretch of track from Northallerton to York disagrees with you.

Yes, my mistake - the 135 miles is actually all south of Darlington.

 

[Western Lord]

Or conversely a 140mph ECML will undermine the business case for HS2 (phase 2).

At 140mph, King's Cross to Leeds, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh would be quicker than taking HS2 from Euston.
Therefore, fewer business travellers (who provide the majority of income for Long distance flows) will choose HS2 over the ECML.

Ultimately, this would have a significant impact on the BCR of HS2. One of the reasons the BCR for HS2 is low compared to similar schemes in Europe is due to the extensive 125mph InterCity network we already have in place here in the UK.

Remember the current HS2 hybrid bill in Parliament is only for phase 1. Two new hybrid bills (one after the other) have to be introduced for Phase 2a and Phase 2b.

Is the industry going to undermine something it has campaigned for for several years? I doubt it

I think we can safely assume that, when HS2 is up and running, the "classic" lines will be reduced to 100/110mph operation in order to increase line capacity and reduce competition. High speed running on a mixed traffic railway eats up capacity which is why 140mph is a non starter for the Great Western.