Could additional Mk.4 carriages be produced?

[jamesontheroad]

Ok, notwithstanding the lack of money, political willpower or common sense involved, could additional mk. 4 carriages ever be produced to strengthen the IC225 fleet?

I appreciate the IEP could eventually succeed the mk. 4s, but with most of my recent journeys on NXEC / EC being very crowded for substantial parts of the journey, and seemingly lots of life left in them yet, do Alstom still own the rights to the design, and are there are any technological hurdles to producing, for instance, a small batch that could add a single standard class carriage to each IC225 set?

 

[Helvellyn]

Depends on the crash-worthiness standards, as well as a few other things. The Mk 4s may now have grandfather rights in certain areas that would prevent new build coaches. In addition, as they are approaching nearly 20 years old you'd be introducing additional coaches that would have an expected short life span.

An example of this is emissions regulations. You could only extend Class 185s or Voyagers with additional diesel powered coaches if you were prepared to accept they'd be powered by different engines. Dithering by the DfT prevented any extra vehicles being ordered whilst the engines on those vehicles were still in production.

The only opportunity for extra Mk 4 coaches was in the mid-1990s when the Conservatives said BR could order 16 sets (plus Class 91s) for the West Coast, or 41 Networkers for the Kent Coast and Great Northern. The Class 365s won out. If they hadn't maybe we'd now have EC operating a few extra Mk 4 sets, and NXEA operating Mk 4 stock in place of the Mk 3s.

 

[djw1981]

The cost of producing the cutting jigs etc may be high, but it's possible - just look at teh rebuilding of Tornado.

 

[jamesontheroad]

Thanks for the thoughts. Didn't the 225 sets get shortened by one car each after Hatfield and/or Great Heck?

 

[Yank 119]

The cost of producing the cutting jigs etc may be high, but it's possible - just look at [the] rebuilding of Tornado.

When was Tornado rebuilt?

 

[GNERman]

The cost of producing the cutting jigs etc may be high, but it's possible - just look at teh rebuilding of Tornado.

That took 17 years, I don't think that that would be tolerable

When was Tornado rebuilt?

It wasn't, it was built from new, every part brand new, none from any former locomotive

 

[tbtc]

It's a nice idea, but one factor not mentioned is that the 225s are already approaching the maximum length at a few stations on the ECML.

That said, I'd be in favour of adding extra coaches into existing trains where possible (not just in this case) - we don't need *more* trains, we badly need to extend some of the existing ones though

 

[Drsatan]

Given that the tooling for the Mk4 coaches no longer exists, it would be quite difficult to build new ones.

In an ideal world, RailJet sets (Taurus loco + 9-11 coaches with a cab car) would be ordered for ECML operations. With RailJet sets operating the majority of fast ECML services, the 91s could be strengthened with an extra two or three cars. Sounds one hell of a lot easier than the IEP program if you ask me...(a relatively ignorant person that is!)

 

[royaloak]

How many stations will a 91+13 mark 4 set be able to stop at?
Its all very well saying make the trains longer but they wont fit the stations, how many drivers on here have to stop their trains with the cab halfway down the ramp to ensure the back door is on, until the stations are lengthened we cannot have longer trains.

 

[djw1981]

My point being it was built according to older designs and schematics - the same as would be needed for Mark4.

 

[Burkitt]

The only opportunity for extra Mk 4 coaches was in the mid-1990s when the Conservatives said BR could order 16 sets (plus Class 91s) for the West Coast, or 41 Networkers for the Kent Coast and Great Northern.

Just in case anyone thought DafT meddling in rolling stock provision was a new thing.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Just in case anyone thought DafT meddling in rolling stock provision was a new thing.

Well, true, but in that case it was a great decision. The stock on the West Coast wasnt life expired (the coaches still in use today) and 91s and Mk4s would have been out of date very quickly, particularly if they weren't built to tilt. Whereas the 365s were needed and have become the mainstay of the GN and will be for probably another decade. There is only a limited pot of money and it needs to be prioritised.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Well, aside from crashworthiness and such that now applies (and has been mentioned), coaches these days tend to have noisy diesel guzzling engines strapped to the underside causing excessive vibrations through the train, often leading to panels vibrating annoyingly after two days in service, combined with a policy which seems to indicate that as few seats as possible per coach, crammed into the smallest possible space whilst not lining up with the windows, is required for all new coaches on the national network.

The Mk4s are simply too spacious to be considered!

 

[yorksrob]

How many stations will a 91+13 mark 4 set be able to stop at?
Its all very well saying make the trains longer but they wont fit the stations, how many drivers on here have to stop their trains with the cab halfway down the ramp to ensure the back door is on, until the stations are lengthened we cannot have longer trains.

Whereas 13 carriage sets may be a little optimistic, I'm sure the majority of platforms on the ECML were built to take at least 12 carriages and a loco (with the exception of some which were rebuilt for high speed). Perhaps the existing Mk4's could be rearranged into 12 carriage rakes and a stop gap solution (such as the ECML Eurostar of a few years ago) could be found to replace the dispanded sets.

 

[gordonthemoron]

IIRC, Railjet sets only have 6 coaches and a driving trailer (with seats), could they be extended?

 

[jopsuk]

On platform lengths- the North of London Eurostars are 320m long. What stations did they stop at on the London-Leeds services? An HST 2+9 is about 240m, a 91+9+DVT pretty much the same.

 

[gordonthemoron]

IIRC, Leeds, Wakefield, Doncaster, Newark, Grantham, Peterborough, Stevenage, KX

They also did London-York prior to operating to Leeds

 

[jopsuk]

so, with about 75-80m to play with, theoretically another three carriages can be accepted at those stations? What about Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Berwick, Dunbar and Waverly? I've a sneaking suspicion they might need two platforms there (fouling the crossover points)

 

[Darandio]

Newcastle 2 & 3 might be ok, Darlington would be fine both northbound and southbound but it wouldn't work at Durham.

 

[FLHH East Anglia]

IIRC, Leeds, Wakefield, Doncaster, Newark, Grantham, Peterborough, Stevenage, KX

They also did London-York prior to operating to Leeds

They also stopped at Retford when they worked the Leeds service.

 

[A60K]

IIRC, Railjet sets only have 6 coaches and a driving trailer (with seats), could they be extended?

Extending Railjet sets wouldn't be a problem as they're basically the same concept as an IC225 - a high-power electric loco with conventional hauled coaching stock (albeit normally in fixed formation rather than being shunted around from day-to-day). Loading gauge would be a problem however.

Having said that, I'm not overly impressed with the interiors of Railjet coaches anyway - too clinical and lacking visual comfort. I much prefer the ICE3 interior design which to my mind is much 'warmer'.

 

[starrymarkb]

Plus OBB run double Railjets with a Taurus in the middle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yKz2hwGzek

 

[Helvellyn]

Another opportunity missed was when serious consideration was given to squadron building a fleet of Class 89s. If we had a fleet of 125mph capable Elctric locomotives, then they could have been used on ECML services with Mk 3A stock, refurbished to Mallard standards.

Shame that after BR went with the Class 91/Mk 4 combination rather than a Class 89/Mk 3 one for the ECML electrification no more Class 89s were built.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, true, but in that case it was a great decision. The stock on the West Coast wasnt life expired (the coaches still in use today) and 91s and Mk4s would have been out of date very quickly, particularly if they weren't built to tilt. Whereas the 365s were needed and have become the mainstay of the GN and will be for probably another decade. There is only a limited pot of money and it needs to be prioritised.

The aim of the Mk 4s for the WCML was in response to the cancelling of the IC250 project. They would have been used on the Manchester/Liverpool services, plus a few Anglo-Scottish ones (likely the Royal Scot among them). That would have allowed all remaining WCML loco-hauled services to be formed of Mk 3 stock. The Mk 2Fs would have been cascaded from the WCML to CrossCountry, allowing virtually all the Mark 2E/2D stock to be withdrawn (probably BSOs would have remained, though heavily upgraded).

All the Class 365s ending up on the GN was never certain, with the fleet being split from new to Kent Coast (16) and Great Northern (25). Of course the original intention for the Kent Coast was Class 471 Networkers. Both the Class 365s and the WCML Class 91s were intended as stop-gaps, as long-term investment dried up (The famous 1000+ day order famine) during the uncertainty of privatisation.

 

[yorksrob]

IIRC, Leeds, Wakefield, Doncaster, Newark, Grantham, Peterborough, Stevenage, KX

They also did London-York prior to operating to Leeds

On these trains, the doors on the last few carriages never opened due to selective door opening and limited platform length. However, I can remember being in the back of these sets at Leeds when the carriage was easily in the platform and we still had to walk a few carriages down, so I believe many of the stations could have taken the whole train, however selective door opening took place at all stations, probably due to ease of programming.

 

[WillPS]

An example of this is emissions regulations. You could only extend Class 185s or Voyagers with additional diesel powered coaches if you were prepared to accept they'd be powered by different engines. Dithering by the DfT prevented any extra vehicles being ordered whilst the engines on those vehicles were still in production.

Surely the 185s could support an unpowered trailer... they're vastly overpowered as it is. Either way, a different type of engine isn't really that big a deal, the 158s don't have one type of engine and several TOCs deal with maintaining multiple types.

 

[Aictos]

Surely the 185s could support an unpowered trailer... they're vastly overpowered as it is. Either way, a different type of engine isn't really that big a deal, the 158s don't have one type of engine and several TOCs deal with maintaining multiple types.

Talking of unpowered trailers, I suppose that would be the easiest way to extend the 220s/221s.

With regards to the XC 220s I know they suffer from overcrowding on certain routes, so would a extra 2 coaches suffice to make them 6 cars or is that overkill?

Don't know if that's how many Virgin intended to have anyway at the launch of them.

How hard would it be to get the production line reopened?

 

[WillPS]

Talking of unpowered trailers, I suppose that would be the easiest way to extend the 220s/221s.

With regards to the XC 220s I know they suffer from overcrowding on certain routes, so would a extra 2 coaches suffice to make them 6 cars or is that overkill?

Don't know if that's how many Virgin intended to have anyway at the launch of them.

How hard would it be to get the production line reopened?

It's certainly possible, there's whispers that Virgin is after an extra Pendo-car for its Voyagers. In my opinion, if they all had an extra carriage or two they'd be fine trains.

 

[Aictos]

How long did Virgin originally want the 220s/221s?

IF for argument's sake Virgin or now XC had the money to extend their 220s/221s to 7 or 8 cars long, would that mean a end to having to double units up to have the capacity available?

Also, could it mean a return to some former XC routes or just use the extended stock to boost the existing services by running more trains.

 

[Snapper]

Building new Mk4s will never happen due to crashworthiness standards - which is probably just as well as they hardly shone at Hatfield.

As for a UK Railjet - forget it. It's MAA figures are 10% lower than stuff like ICEs. It's a nice idea for enthusiasts, but not for operators. It was only ever conceived as a plan to deal with the fact that OBB had ordered too many locos and didn't know what to do with them!

 

[A0]

Ok, notwithstanding the lack of money, political willpower or common sense involved, could additional mk. 4 carriages ever be produced to strengthen the IC225 fleet?

I appreciate the IEP could eventually succeed the mk. 4s, but with most of my recent journeys on NXEC / EC being very crowded for substantial parts of the journey, and seemingly lots of life left in them yet, do Alstom still own the rights to the design, and are there are any technological hurdles to producing, for instance, a small batch that could add a single standard class carriage to each IC225 set?

On the basis anything is possible, they could. But the question is whether they should - as others have pointed out these are a design which is almost 25 years old - we'd say Ford were mad if they announced tomorrow they were reproducing the Fiesta from 1986 or Volvo that they were dusting off the design for the Leyland Lynx to be next year's single deck bus of choice.

A better approach would be to address the reasons for overcrowding on the ECML by use of new stock or improved timetabling.

I'm guessing (though I'm no expert on this) that the overcrowding happens in certain areas. Perhaps one option would be to follow the WCML example where a lot of stops between London and Crewe have been taken out of services and replaced with the regular London - Crewe LM stopper. This way people travelling "locally" between say Rugby and Stafford, now have a better service than they've seen for many years.

Could a similar approach be used on the ECML? E.g. 8 car cl 350s (2+2 seat) running a London - York stopper? Calling Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster, York? And stop longer distance (e.g. Leeds, Newcastle or Edinburgh services) from stopping at those intermediate stations?

And what about a York - Newcastle stopper, leaving just Durham as an EC IC stop? Again, taking out intermediate stops.

Might be a better long term solution.