Should more Mk5 coaches have been built instead of IETs?

[LOL The Irony]

Class 93 140-mph bo-bo loco (London to Edinburgh, Swansea, Bristol, Cross-Country etc)

Have you taken an idea from a certain Swiss train builder?

Class 94 125 mph co-co mixed use loco (London to Oxford, Kings Lynn, Midland Mainline services etc, West Coast post HS2 services, London to Norwich)
Class 95- essentially a 94 but could run on third rail and be used on the Bournemouth to Manchester services.

The lack of new build CO-CO's is almost criminal. The new Class 93's should really be CO-CO.

Yes-I think so. MK 5s could be the new MK 3s and MK 6s could be based on the MK 2 design.

I can see what you mean anout the MK5's but can you elaborate on the MK6?

 

[hexagon789]

Distributed traction could have been achieved by some creative thinking. Coach sets could have had traction motors every few coaches powered by connected power cars/ locos.

You still lose one or two vehicles worth of seating capacity. I suppose something like an original Eurostar with two power cars and motors on the adjacent passenger cars might be the best workaround off the two?

 

[GrimShady]

Delete

 

[GrimShady]

Isn't that basically the Stadler model?

I'm thinking more along the lines of the TGV sets with additional traction motors in leasing coaches power by separate locomotives or power cars such as like the HST.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Have you taken an idea from a certain Swiss train builder?

The lack of new build CO-CO's is almost criminal. The new Class 93's should really be CO-CO.

I can see what you mean anout the MK5's but can you elaborate on the MK6?

Lol, I took the idea from an alternative history story about BR I’m writing. To cut down the number of expensive IC250 sets BR ordered a few single locomotives instead to haul WCML traffic alongside the 250s.

The MK6 wouldn’t be a long distance express carriage. It would be used for services <200 miles and typically fluctuates in length due to demand-such as XC services etc. Of course the MK6 and MK5 would both be air conditioned with WiFi, but I envisioned the MK6s to be shorter than the 5s.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Yes-I think so. MK 5s could be the new MK 3s and MK 6s could be based on the MK 2 design. As for locomotive haulage, you could have-

Bear in mind that Mark 1 coaches came in 57' and 64' lengths, so there's no reason why the hypothetical InterCity 250/HST2/IEP Mark 5 coaches would have to be limited to a 26m long-distance express coach.

 

[swt_passenger]

The only downside is you lose seating capacity from having power cars and acceleration by only having motored wheelsets at the ends of the train.

And if your route’s major terminus is incapable of extension then that lost capacity becomes reasonably significant in percentage terms. It could easily be in the order of 10% seating lost.

 

[tbtc]

And to Hull, Harrogate, Lincoln, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Huddersfield and when required around via Spalding, Askern, the Durham Coast, Tyne Valley, Castleford, Cambridge... Ends up being a fair few locos that!

True!

Plus the practicalities of finding space at a busy station like Waverley to attach a diesel locomotive...

...and the subsequent problems with joining/splitting trains (fine for a 5+5 80x to split so that the quieter extremes of a route can be served by a shorter train but what do you do if your ten coach train plus "top and tail" power cars plus the diesel loco dragging it are trying to find platforms long enough to accommodate it at intermediate stations at the "non-London" end...

...and the large number of additional carriages you'd need to build to maintain the same capacity at the London end (given that your five-coach portion for some "non-London" destinations now needs to be a ten coach train due to the inability to split...

...and the potential loss of capacity at the London end, given the room required for two power cars compared to the much smaller "crumple zones" on DMU/EMUs...

...it's a nice idea, don't get me wrong - I like the idea of the main ECML/GWML trains using the same carriages as the loco hauled TPE services, as this would make it a lot easier to order subsequent batches (e.g. XC/ MML or just capacity increases on the ECML/ GWML/ TPE) - that sounds preferable to having "bespoke" stock - it's a nice idea in theory but I think we made the right decision.

It'll be interesting to see how the people so quick to complain about the "utilitarian" décor of the 80xs and the "functional" seats (compared to beloved HSTs/ Mk3s) is replicated on the Mk5s and they realise that it's a "new train" problem rather than a reason to bash multiple units that replace "proper" trains with a loco at each end.

 

[hexagon789]

And if your route’s major terminus is incapable of extension then that lost capacity becomes reasonably significant in percentage terms. It could easily be in the order of 10% seating lost.

That's the only issue I see really, is that in this day and age of needing capacity, using power cars/locos eats up seating space.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Plus the practicalities of finding space at a busy station like Waverley to attach a diesel locomotive...

This particular issue could be resolved by approaching it in a similar way to Southern Region with 4TCs and Class 33s. Diesel at the north end, push-pull trailer set in the middle, electric at the south end. Use a modern autocoupler, hook on the new locomotive and unhook the old one, should only take a few minutes. All the services that run through Waverley have a relatively long dwell when this could be done. The electric locomotive then gets left in the platform for the next southbound unit to be propelled in by diesel, unless you specify a beefy enough diesel to shove that over Slochd as well.

Other issues are largely solvable, though splitting at quieter stations would be a bit of a pain. The seats per metre issue is the big one, and there isn't a lot that can be done about it. And therein lies the issue. British intercity trains have to pretend to be outer suburban ones, because we commute long distances and refuse to provide proper urban transport infrastructure.

 

[LOL The Irony]

, I took the idea from an alternative history story about BR I’m writing.

You spoiled it!

 

[LOL The Irony]

The MK6 wouldn’t be a long distance express carriage. It would be used for services <200 miles and typically fluctuates in length due to demand-such as XC services etc. Of course the MK6 and MK5 would both be air conditioned with WiFi, but I envisioned the MK6s to be shorter than the 5s.

20M carriages then?

 

[coppercapped]

Distributed traction could have been achieved by some creative thinking. Coach sets could have had traction motors every few coaches powered by connected power cars/ locos.

Already done! See this article about the 1929 built 1,200hp mobile power houses and trains for the Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway.

 

[hexagon789]

Already done! See this article about the 1929 built 1,200hp mobile power houses and trains for the Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway.

75km/h though!

The concept is an interesting one though, 90 years on you'd think we could improve on it!

 

[PeterC]

That's the only issue I see really, is that in this day and age of needing capacity, using power cars/locos eats up seating space.

I don't recall suggesting classic loco haulage.

 

[Ianno87]

The electric locomotive then gets left in the platform for the next southbound unit to be propelled in by diesel, unless you specify a beefy enough diesel to shove that over Slochd as well.

Making quite an heroic assumption that the exact same platform that suits the northbound train remains available and unoccupied for the southbound train some time later.

 

[hexagon789]

I don't recall suggesting classic loco haulage.

To a layman the idea of having a standard passenger coach topped and tailed by motor / driving units does appear to the the "obvious" way to go. Build N identical sets of passenger cars and a mix of diesel, AC electric, DC electric and bi mode front end units as required.

Surely passenger cars with some form of motor/driving units is effectively push-pull loco-haulage in the manner of HSTs?

 

[GrimShady]

Already done! See this article about the 1929 built 1,200hp mobile power houses and trains for the Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the link!

 

[Indigo Soup]

Making quite an heroic assumption that the exact same platform that suits the northbound train remains available and unoccupied for the southbound train some time later.

If you went down that route, you'd have to look at the implications of timetabling it so that all London-Aberdeen/Inverness services used the same platform in both directions, and ensuring that the 'some time later' was just the interval to the next train. If that couldn't be arranged, or mitigation provided at a reasonable cost, you'd have to drop the through services.

Of course, scheduling this would be much easier in an integrated railway where East Coast, West Coast, Cross-Country, ScotRail and (in the future) Transpennine all drew on the same pool of units.

 

[The Ham]

If you went down that route, you'd have to look at the implications of timetabling it so that all London-Aberdeen/Inverness services used the same platform in both directions, and ensuring that the 'some time later' was just the interval to the next train. If that couldn't be arranged, or mitigation provided at a reasonable cost, you'd have to drop the through services.

Of course, scheduling this would be much easier in an integrated railway where East Coast, West Coast, Cross-Country, ScotRail and (in the future) Transpennine all drew on the same pool of units.

In the case of the delays to the extent of electrification for the likes of Oxford it would have been a disaster, in that the plans for the switch over would have been based at Oxford/Cardiff not Didcot. Meaning a lot more locos needed and/or HST's and meaning that the timetable would have had to have been rewritten.

Can I see why people think that a fleet of coaches which can be moved around as demand requires? Yes certainly, however I can also see that we don't have the staff/platform capacity to spilt and join coaches enroute (MU's yes but not coaches).

Passenger numbers are massive, on a per 1000 miles of track basis it's never been surpassed in this county. As such doing things the way we did on the past are unlikely to be possible.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Not bothering to read the whole lot, I shall simply say this:

If in this country we were smart enough to build things like Mk5 Sets that usually went around as ‘X Length’ but could have coaches added to suit seasonal demand, it would be a positive over fixed units. This is also the case in respect of staffing of double units.