If IEP gets Cancelled?

[jopsuk]

Sure I'd seen something mentioned in this thread, but it must have been another, that I've also wondered about- with the Mark 3 stock, round up Irish coaches as well, be maybe a bit ruthless in checking them all over and discarding ones that are clearly beyond saving, then, including all the UK ones in use (including HST stock):
Heavily refurb. Fit all with power operated doors with a smart, good SDO system
Stardised interior layouts. See WSMR etc for details...
Standard electrical systems.
Build more Mark 3 DVTs. A lot more
Fit them all with 125mph bogies
Fit them all with standardised Push/pull control bus cables
Form them into standard sets- say 3+DVT, 6+DVT and 9+DVT for different routes
Fit the inner end coach with an automatic coupler
Then get a fleet of compatible locos- one diesel and perhaps two electric- one just AC, the other Dual Voltage to allow it to run into Southern land happily.
At boundary stations you'll need a short loco release siding just beyond the pllatform. With the loco leading, the replacment should be sat on the road out. Train pullss in, loco uncouples, new loco runs in and couples up. Nice and quick.

Expensive, possibly impractical, fantasy. But proabably a lot cheaper than new stock

 

[ChrisCooper]

I think a big issue is if the GWML electrification goes ahead, the timescale, and to what extent.
"Bi mode" is aimed at services operating off core electrified routes onto unelectrified lines. For that my solution would be to build a fleet of "Mk5" coaches with Driving Trailers, and a mix of diesel and electric locos. The electric loco would be at the London end of the train, with a streamlined Driving Trailer at the other end, and would push the train to the changeover point. A diesel loco would already be waiting in the platform at the changeover station and the train would drive up and couple to it using a fully automatic tightlock (allows compatability with buckeye fitted stock). The electric would then be uncoupled from the back and the train would proceed onwards, diesel hauled. The delay would be negligable, it's not like Intercity trains exactly rush in and out of stations anyway. The same would occur on the return, with this time the diesel propelling with another Driving Trailer at the London end. Since the none electrified routes are mostly 100mph or less, the diesels could be 100mph limited, giving better acceleration, and the London end DT could be blunt and corridored. This would allow in some cases the train to be split with just a portion going forwards.
If the GWML is not electrified in a reasonable timespan for keeping HSTs then the same "Mk5s" could be top and tailed by pairs of the same diesels, but 125mph capable (I'm not convinced that a single diesel loco could haul a modern 8 or 9 coach train at 125mph whilst keeping axle weight reasonable). As and when electrification takes place, it's a simple matter of getting more electric locos, the diesels then being cascaded to off the wires work, or other services (even freight).
The "Mk5" bodyshell could also be used for EMU and DMU designs, just like the Mk3s. This could include high speed full electric versions for electrified routes such as the main ECML and some GWML routes, perhaps the MML, oviously the GEML, maybe even some WCML services (replacing the Desiros on the longer distance services).

 

[LE Greys]

"Bi mode" is aimed at services operating off core electrified routes onto unelectrified lines. For that my solution would be to build a fleet of "Mk5" coaches with Driving Trailers, and a mix of diesel and electric locos. The electric loco would be at the London end of the train, with a streamlined Driving Trailer at the other end, and would push the train to the changeover point. A diesel loco would already be waiting in the platform at the changeover station and the train would drive up and couple to it using a fully automatic tightlock (allows compatability with buckeye fitted stock). The electric would then be uncoupled from the back and the train would proceed onwards, diesel hauled. The delay would be negligable, it's not like Intercity trains exactly rush in and out of stations anyway. The same would occur on the return, with this time the diesel propelling with another Driving Trailer at the London end. Since the none electrified routes are mostly 100mph or less, the diesels could be 100mph limited, giving better acceleration, and the London end DT could be blunt and corridored. This would allow in some cases the train to be split with just a portion going forwards.

Isn't this what used to happen when the 4-REPs arrived at Bournemouth? That seemed to work fine back then. The main place this would happen would be Waverley. Some people seem to think that four platforms need to be out of use for this, but I only make it two (or at most three). One of the eastern bays to store the diesel or electric in (let's face it, they don't see much use anyway) one through platform to stop the train, and perhaps a parallel through platform if you need to run round for any reason. I'm not sure if the entire train can run it behind the diesel on arrival from London, but EMUs do this at Bournemouth all the time, and I think the REP/TC formations did so as well.

Personally, I would run round at Aberdeen or Inverness (DVT-first running is unpopular in Scotland after Polmont). However, Aberdeen should be quite high up the electrification list, so the changeovers for Inverness should happen at Perth at some point in the future. Time is the key factor, however a booked stop including a crew change at Waverley is usually ten minutes. That should be plenty of time, especially if you use Buckeyes/Tightlocks or Dellners. This just might work.

 

[Drsatan]

A diesel loco would already be waiting in the platform at the changeover station and the train would drive up and couple to it using a fully automatic tightlock (allows compatability with buckeye fitted stock). The electric would then be uncoupled from the back and the train would proceed onwards, diesel hauled. The delay would be negligable, it's not like Intercity trains exactly rush in and out of stations anyway. .

If diesel locomotives dedicated to these services only had buckeye/Tightlock couplers installed, they wouldn't be able to haul anything else. Unless the tightlock/buckeye coupler was fitted above or below the standard three-link chain coupling. The 57s have retractable Dellner couplers for hauling 390s, but there have been problems in the past with the couplers not lowering/failing to retract.

 

[LE Greys]

If diesel locomotives dedicated to these services only had buckeye/Tightlock couplers installed, they wouldn't be able to haul anything else. Unless the tightlock/buckeye coupler was fitted above or below the standard three-link chain coupling. The 57s have retractable Dellner couplers for hauling 390s, but there have been problems in the past with the couplers not lowering/failing to retract.

Didn't the 33/1s have drophead Buckeyes for just this purpose? The A4s had drophead Buckeyes on the tender for that matter. Not sure if it's possible to fit a retractable Tightlock.

 

[Drsatan]

Didn't the 33/1s have drophead Buckeyes for just this purpose? The A4s had drophead Buckeyes on the tender for that matter. Not sure if it's possible to fit a retractable Tightlock.

I've looked on the SEMG's entry for the 33s, http://www.semgonline.com/diesel/class33_01.html, and there's no mention of the 33/1s being fitted with buckeye couplers, although looking at photographs of 33/1s reveals that they may have been fitted with them.

Nonetheless, I think buckeye couplers haven't been used by 2nd and 3rd generation DMUs/EMUs because more recent designs incorporate electrical connections to allow units to work in multiple.

 

[KiddyKid]

The 33/1, 73 and 74 all had drophead buckeye couplings for use with TC and EMU stock, these could be raised in a couple of minutes along with the retraction of the buffers, the high level jumpers and brake hoses again took a couple of minutes to put together, the whole operation five minutes at the most. I think the move to Tightlock/ Dellner type couplings was mainly to do away with the need to go between vehicles during the coupling process and of course to save money by not needing shunters to couple up.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Screw couplings on the locos would only be needed for freight work though, all passenger coaches are buckeye fitted so could be hauled. The main problem would be the inability of a screw coupling only loco to couple to either the loco or stock, for example for rescue. Then again they can't couple to a unit either without an adapter coupling or barrier wagon. 67s, 90s and 91s though have buckeyes though so could connect. Any coach would provide a suitable barrier wagon. That said, perhaps a drop or swing head tightlock could be fitted that was still fully automatic. The main problem would be the weight (buckeyes are heavy enough as it is without all the extra for automation) and the need to flex the air and electrical connections (especailly the thick ETS wires). Then again I'm not entirely sure if automatic connection of the ETS wires would be possible. Nothing else does it, all units are self contained in terms of high voltage wiring. High level manual connections would be another option, like on older EMUs. They would need brake pipe, main reservoir, ETS and data (TDM) connections. The stock would have EP brakes, but these would be controlled by the TDM, the automatic air brake privding the failsafe. I think thats how Eurostars and TGVs do it.

Only problem with running around with the diesel is the added time for chageover on the return, as the diesel needs to be uncoupled and moved clear before the electric can be coupled on. I didn't know the Scots had any problems with Driving Trailers leading, they never seem to have had problems with southbound ECML and WCML trains running with the DVT leading. I'm not at all convinced you are any worse off travelling in a Driving Trailer leading a push-pull set than the lead coach on a unit. I also do like the possibility of only taking part of the train forward, which is much easier with push-pull. Plus there is the fact that this was it can be sold as a unit with interchangeable power units, not loco haulage, so it keep the anti-locohauled crowd happy. Could even call the diesel "self propelled generator car" and the electric a "self propelled pantograph car", to make them even happier.

Oh and by the way, the 33/1s did have buckeyes along with high level air and control connectors for use with SR EMUs. The TCs though had drophead buckeyes and conventional air pipes so they could be hauled by other locos. 442s are the same actually. Both TCs and 442s have standard ETS connections too, although I don't know if a TC can get ETS off a none SR loco as 33/1s and 73s are 750v DC train suppply, compared to the normal 1000v.

 

[LE Greys]

Only problem with running around with the diesel is the added time for chageover on the return, as the diesel needs to be uncoupled and moved clear before the electric can be coupled on. I didn't know the Scots had any problems with Driving Trailers leading, they never seem to have had problems with southbound ECML and WCML trains running with the DVT leading. I'm not at all convinced you are any worse off travelling in a Driving Trailer leading a push-pull set than the lead coach on a unit. I also do like the possibility of only taking part of the train forward, which is much easier with push-pull. Plus there is the fact that this was it can be sold as a unit with interchangeable power units, not loco haulage, so it keep the anti-locohauled crowd happy. Could even call the diesel "self propelled generator car" and the electric a "self propelled pantograph car", to make them even happier.

The time constraint isn't much of a worry at Inverness (where the stock waits overnight) or Aberdeen (which involves a refuel and full inside-out clean). Not sure about Hull, Fishguard and so on. Penzance might be a bit tricky, but I expect the wires to reach there at some point anyway.

The thing that concerns me about Hitachi's current plan is the 'power station' proposed. We might end up with an immobile diesel engine, which really needs at least one traction motor to move about depots at least. Perhaps that's employment for a whole new class of shunters.

 

[ChrisCooper]

I didn't mean the time for running around, which isn't really a big problem as long as their are the facilities to do it (although many terminal stations these days do not), but for changing the locos over. It's much easier and quicker to do a loco change when putting one loco on the front and taking one off the back than to swap the loco at the front. Cross Country used to do it like that at Birmingham, the 47 would be taken off at one end whilst the 86 was added at the other, but without push-pull it only works when the train can be reversed. Birmingham was great for loco changes as trains to and from the WCML could head north or south by leaving either end of the station.
I really don't see the issue with having a driving trailer at both ends of the coaching set. I'm specifically saying driving trailer, not full blown DVT, as I would anticipate them both having passenger seating, basically being like MU driving cars. The large luggage van on the DVTs was only for 2 out of date reasons, firstly the fact that at that time passengers were banned from travelling in the leading vehicle at speeds of over 100mph (not that it seemed to matter on APT-P) and secondly that at the time trains carried a lot more luggage, things like Red Star Parcels, and on the WCML the DVTs replaced the BG in the formation.

 

[LE Greys]

Personally, I think driving trailers are a good solution (right back to auto coaches). However, there are a few problems. Firstly, do you have two streamlined ends or one streamlined and one flat end? There are drawbacks to both, one is a bit awkward if you reverse (which results in 91s sometimes running slab-end first at the south end of a reverse-formed train). The other causes a running notch, unless you have a loco streamlined at both ends.

Switzerland manages fine with driving trailers. I once saw a Geneva-Zurich express formed DT - single-decker - DT - five double-deckers - loco (Re-460) - five double-deckers - DT - single-decker - DT. Yes, loco in the middle and four extra cabs, all streamlined.

 

[90019]

Switzerland manages fine with driving trailers. I once saw a Geneva-Zurich express formed DT - single-decker - DT - five double-deckers - loco (Re-460) - five double-deckers - DT - single-decker - DT. Yes, loco in the middle and four extra cabs, all streamlined.

NMBS sometimes run HLE13s in the middle of consists with driving cars at each end.

When I was in Geneva, I saw an IC2000 set with a single decker coach and cab car on the non loco end, but I think this was due to a failure in the IC2000 cab, as the single decker coaches weren't being used apart from for the cab.

 

[Pumbaa]

The report will be with Hammond within a week now, and issued to various railway related important people thereafter. Not long to go now before we all learn of the sensible decision that should have been made years ago... - put it in the bin!

 

[HITMAN]

Theres no need to replace the IC225's now, they should leave them to run until at least 2020 at which point we should upgrade the ECML to take 155mph tilting trains which could probably do that speed from Stevenage until Thirsk, with a few reduced speed sections. At the moment we don't have enough money for that, hence wait til 2020. A modern, tilting, version of the Meridian should be built with 2 pantograph coaches for the GWML and use Pendo's displaced by the building of high speed 2. They should cut down on the huge costs of projects like Thameslink and Crossrail, which can most likely be done without harming their substance and invest in a replacement to the pacer preferably with 100mph top speed and good accelaration. The voyagers should be allowed to tilt and should have a pantograph coach added, the TPE 185's should terminate at Darlington instead of Newcastle and the stock be used on other parts of the TPE route.

 

[asylumxl]

Back in the real world...

 

[455driver]

Hitman, you are going to fit in-cab signalling on the ECML for the 3 bits of track that could possibly take that speed are you?

As for the rest of it, dear oh dear, but one thing- 100mph pacer replacement, WHY? local stuff will be lucky to get above 50 between stations and gearing them for too high a maximum speed will just slow down the acceleration (and use more fuel) for no discernible advantage! Can you explain your reasoning on this one.

 

[WatcherZero]

IEP and Thameslink look dead, had this statement from Dft this afternoon.
'There will be no new rolling stock orders in 2010 or 2011 that have not already been signed'.

 

[LE Greys]

OK, what now?

Oh, and are TOCs/ROSCOs allowed to spend their own money on new stock?

 

[A60K]

Theres no need to replace the IC225's now, they should leave them to run until at least 2020 at which point we should upgrade the ECML to take 155mph tilting trains which could probably do that speed from Stevenage until Thirsk, with a few reduced speed sections. At the moment we don't have enough money for that, hence wait til 2020. A modern, tilting, version of the Meridian should be built with 2 pantograph coaches for the GWML and use Pendo's displaced by the building of high speed 2. They should cut down on the huge costs of projects like Thameslink and Crossrail, which can most likely be done without harming their substance and invest in a replacement to the pacer preferably with 100mph top speed and good accelaration. The voyagers should be allowed to tilt and should have a pantograph coach added, the TPE 185's should terminate at Darlington instead of Newcastle and the stock be used on other parts of the TPE route.

TPE terminate at Darlington rather than Newcastle? By that logic you would terminate every other train from London to Birmingham at Coventry to save a set!

 

[Pumbaa]

IEP and Thameslink look dead, had this statement from Dft this afternoon.
'There will be no new rolling stock orders in 2010 or 2011 that have not already been signed'.

Yes - by the look of things LM have just had their order of 350/3 and 350/4 from Siemens shat on by DfT. LM were waiting for the go-ahead to order /3s to replace the 323s and provide 6 extra cars, and the sub-order (presumed /4 but I don't actually know) was for 6, yes SIX!, 4 car Desiros to work Manchester - Scotland.

Bye bye!

 

[HITMAN]

Hitman, you are going to fit in-cab signalling on the ECML for the 3 bits of track that could possibly take that speed are you?

As for the rest of it, dear oh dear, but one thing- 100mph pacer replacement, WHY? local stuff will be lucky to get above 50 between stations and gearing them for too high a maximum speed will just slow down the acceleration (and use more fuel) for no discernible advantage! Can you explain your reasoning on this one.

The ECML is actually pretty straight on the whole, particularly on the section that I have mentioned. So I think with a track upgrade and signalling fitted we could significantly reduce journey times, so yes I would.

Most EMU's these days which opperate on local routes have a top speed of 100. Moreover the trade off between top speed and accelaration is less apparent on more modern units in any case. Having trains that run at different speeds to each other significantly reduces the number of trains that can be run on any one line, for some routes the 75mph top speed is not reached, but on many the line speeds are higher which the units are present cannot take advantage of. Naturally the replacement to the pacer as a newer and nicer unit would be in practice likely to displace older Sprinters to lesser routes. We would therefore see the new units opperating on many lines with a speed limit of 75+mph such as the ECML between Peterborough and Grantham which is 125mph. The advantage would be shorter journey times, by opposing my suggestion you are committing most local trains to the same journey times for (based upon the life of pacers and sprinters) 30 years. One of the biggest factors which drives people away from local lines is journey times when compared to the car, and with cars increasingly being able to travel more safely at higher speeds it may actually lead people to reject the railways more in favour of their cars.

TPE terminate at Darlington rather than Newcastle? By that logic you would terminate every other train from London to Birmingham at Coventry to save a set!

Preferably I'd terminate them at York, but then there needs to be a train serving Northallerton and Thirsk hence why Darlington. There are severe problems with overcrowding on parts of the transpennine route and to my knowledge there aren't any between Newcastle and York on the express trains. Not to mention the slower TPE trains restrict the number of faster trains and goods trains that can be run on the ECML. Therefore it only seems sensible to displace the slower semi-suburban diesels from the faster route where they constrain capacity and replace them where they are desperately needed, especially between Liverpool and Manchester.

 

[starrymarkb]

Thing is, you can't just cascade stock like that. Surely it would be best to do a new built (say a diesel 378 with normal seating) that is suited for local work rather then cascading 158s which are not at all suited

 

[ChrisCooper]

A diesel 378 with normal seating, that would be a 172. :P

 

[swt_passenger]

A diesel 378 with normal seating, that would be a 172. :P

Reminds me of a post I saw somewhere suggesting it would be a good idea to build an electric version of the 185 with end doors...

 

[starrymarkb]

I was thinking more basic then 172 but yes I left myself open to that.

Maybe a UK equivalent of the light railcars (GTW, Desiro, Talent, LINT) that are popular on the continent

 

[ChrisCooper]

I don't think they are as light as they seem really. A Bombardier Tallent for example in it's smallest form weights around 70t. A conventional Turbostar weights around 90t, but 172s are supposed to be lighter, but there isn't a great deal in it. A 150 also weights just over 70t. Another problem is axle weight, a Tallent is articulated so has 2 less axles which means a higher axle weight, slightly more than a 170. It is a big problem, articulation keeps the overall weight down (bogies are a big part of the weight) but puts the axle weight up.

What worries me about Pacer replacement is that we either end up with something bloated and uneconomic, or stripped down to the point where it's little better than what it's replacing.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Yes - by the look of things LM have just had their order of 350/3 and 350/4 from Siemens shat on by DfT. LM were waiting for the go-ahead to order /3s to replace the 323s and provide 6 extra cars, and the sub-order (presumed /4 but I don't actually know) was for 6, yes SIX!, 4 car Desiros to work Manchester - Scotland.

Bye bye!

I think you'll find that the Manchester - Scotland requirement was ten x 4-car units for nine diagrams.

 

[Pumbaa]

I think you'll find that the Manchester - Scotland requirement was ten x 4-car units for nine diagrams.

I'm presuming that would have meant pinching an extra 4 from LM themselves, as the order was only for 6!

 

[yorksrob]

What worries me about Pacer replacement is that we either end up with something bloated and uneconomic, or stripped down to the point where it's little better than what it's replacing.

It seems to me that the majority of Pacer routes I use are already shared at least in part by the lower 15x series, so perhaps the best idea would be to replace these and cascade them down to replace the Pacers.

 

[HITMAN]

It seems to me that the majority of Pacer routes I use are already shared at least in part by the lower 15x series, so perhaps the best idea would be to replace these and cascade them down to replace the Pacers.

Yeah thats what I was thinking, except the new stock would in a way be replacing pacers as it would be the pacers that would be retired