No Life Extension for HSTs

[route:oxford]

Going back to what could or should have happened with a different culture: Remove the 91 at EDI and substitute 2x Class 43 or more recently perhaps a modified 67. Line speed is max 100mph north of there

Are there really no line speeds north of Edinburgh in excess of 100mph?

I'm sure there is a section between Edinburgh and Perth (via Stirling) that is 125mph for HSTs.

 

[Daimler]

Should have ordered more 379s to replace 90s but less airport style

Huh? Why?

Why waste a load of money - at a time of spending cuts - replacing the 90s + Mk3s? They are absolutely excellent trains which are nowhere near the end of their useful life yet and are much better suited to the job in hand by a load of glorified commuter trains - which, if one can judge from FCC's experience of the 377s, will hardly have a 'trouble free' introduction.

New doesn't necessarily mean better!

 

[LE Greys]

Are there really no line speeds north of Edinburgh in excess of 100mph?

I'm sure there is a section between Edinburgh and Perth (via Stirling) that is 125mph for HSTs.

Unfortunately not, although it would be suitable, as would the Dundee and Arbroath Joint - apart from the level crossing at Broughty Ferry. Thing is, Perth-Stirling gets one HST each way per day, so what's the good of upgrading for that? Dundee-Arbroath gets three plus a Voyager each way, so it's more worthwhile. However, they still have to slow down for the Fife Coast.

 

[jopsuk]

why would slowing down for the Fife coast affect speeding up Arbroath-Dundee? They stop at Dundee (which has a slow bridge to the South of it anyway), then Leuchars, Kirkcaldy and Inverkeithing.

Also, there's four East Coast services each way Edinburgh-Aberdeen - there's a northbound from Leeds, and a southbound that terminates at Edinburgh. There's also a morning Northbound XC service that starts at Dundee, and a southbound evening one terminating at Edinburgh- makes for six services each way between Dundee and Aberdeen each day capable of using "HST" speeds- 50% more than your count!

There's crazy talk* of the Edinburgh-Glasgow mainline (via Falkirk) going 125mph when it is electrified- I've seen mention there that parts of the line (including between Edinburgh and Polmont junction) were previously rated for full speed HST operation, when they operated to Queen Street.

*crazy, because all the other services (Dunblane, Alloa, A-B plus Glasgow to the North) on the same tracks would be 100mph max and stopping.

 

[Chafford1]

It's quite probable, although there’s a good chance they’d have to fork out a small fortune on DDA compliance measures if they expected to use them for more than a couple of years.

According to December's 'Modern Railways' (page 90), Chiltern will be introducing 3 sets of updated Mk 3 coaches (to run with class 67s and DVTs) which will have sliding plug doors and disabled friendly retention toilets.


Why not apply a similar programme to the GWML, replacing the HST powercars with new locomotives and DVTs? For extra capacity, Mk 3 compatible 'Polaris' carriages and driving trailers could be purchased.

 

[Lampshade]

According to December's 'Modern Railways' (page 90), Chiltern will be introducing 3 sets of updated Mk 3 coaches (to run with class 67s and DVTs) which will have sliding plug doors and disabled friendly retention toilets.

The 67s pathetic route availability may be a limitation.

 

[route:oxford]

According to December's 'Modern Railways' (page 90), Chiltern will be introducing 3 sets of updated Mk 3 coaches (to run with class 67s and DVTs) which will have sliding plug doors and disabled friendly retention toilets.

Did they suggest timescales/introduction dates?

 

[Chafford1]

Did they suggest timescales/introduction dates?

2 rakes in December 2011, the other 5 coaches in May 2012,according to Modern Railways - the formation will be class 67, 5 second class Mk3s and DVT.


As Chiltern (and Roger Ford) think the Mk3 is still viable, I'm surpised Philip Hammond rejected the idea of a larger scale refurbishment for GWML.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Do you have any suggestions as to where the 91s+Mk4s could go when they are cascaded off the ECML?

GWML, if the electrification and ERTMS planned roll out actually goes ahead (GWML is supposed to get it first) the 225s would be able to hit 140mph at last.

Why waste a load of money - at a time of spending cuts - replacing the 90s + Mk3s? They are absolutely excellent trains which are nowhere near the end of their useful life yet and are much better suited to the job in hand by a load of glorified commuter trains!

Exactlly. If there was a near endless budget I'd say there's roughly 5 catagories of passenger trains and would say the most suitable stock (not counting London overground/undergroud) is as follows:

• INTERCITY sevices - IC225 (on routes above 110mph, class 90/87 + mrk3s +DVT on other routes) - off wire extension of services would be by swapping the 91/90/87 for a class 47/7 or TDM fitted 57.
• 3rd rail express services (eg. Portsmouth - Waterloo fasts) - 5-WES (Wessex Electric) and maybe an OHLE version for stuff like Holyhead - Manchester (if electrified).
• Commuter services - Class 377s (faster, or longer distance, services) and somthing like an electric 150/2 (shorter distance, metro-like services)
• Rual services where electrification hasn't really got a business case - Class 158 'Alphaline'

According to December's 'Modern Railways' (page 90), Chiltern will be introducing 3 sets of updated Mk 3 coaches (to run with class 67s and DVTs) which will have sliding plug doors and disabled friendly retention toilets.

Why not apply a similar programme to the GWML, replacing the HST powercars with new locomotives and DVTs?

Or do that for the ECML, and give the GWML the IC225s. Maybe you could even use the body shells of class 43s for the new locos, recycling is good. Shame Chiltern use 67s, TDM fitted 57s would be better looking in my opinion and the DVTs wouldn't need modifying to work with the other system. Unless there's actually somewhere not wired with 100mph+ linespeeds 67s should be used for what they were built for, keeping Royal Mail lorries off the road and their planes on the ground.

 

[route:oxford]

2 rakes in December 2011, the other 5 coaches in May 2012,according to Modern Railways - the formation will be class 67, 5 second class Mk3s and DVT.


As Chiltern (and Roger Ford) think the Mk3 is still viable, I'm surpised Philip Hammond rejected the idea of a larger scale refurbishment for GWML.

So, that would suggest one month per coach... Which can be rolled back to the first coach coming off the re-production line in March 2011. Look forward to seeing it.

I suppose that there is nothing to stop anyone who obtains a HST set from implementing the same work as DB/Chiltern.

 

[Chafford1]

So, that would suggest one month per coach... Which can be rolled back to the first coach coming off the re-production line in March 2011. Look forward to seeing it.

I suppose that there is nothing to stop anyone who obtains a HST set from implementing the same work as DB/Chiltern.

Precisely. Which is why I'm all the more puzzled why this cut price option has been rejected for the GWML.

 

[ainsworth74]

GWML, if the electrification and ERTMS planned roll out actually goes ahead (GWML is supposed to get it first) the 225s would be able to hit 140mph at last.

Not heard that the GWML was supposed to be getting ERTMS. If the wires do go up on the GWML then I suppose sending the 91s+Mk4s over there would make sense, but I thought that the GWML was getting IEP (or whatever we end up with to fill that role).

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Are there really no line speeds north of Edinburgh in excess of 100mph?

I'm sure there is a section between Edinburgh and Perth (via Stirling) that is 125mph for HSTs.

The reply by LE Greys is correct. There isn't any over 100mph operation north of Edinburgh (and what there is at 100mph is for "HSTs only" on account of their braking capability - that's between Larbert & Perth).

I've argued before for improvements between Edinburgh & Perth (via Stirling and the Forth Bridge) to allow higher linespeeds, not particularly because there is a high frequency of 'fast' trains, (there isn't) but because very many of the journeys over that stretch are carrying long distance passengers, to whom time savings are valuable. Speeds are typically 75mph at present. Also, its a lot cheaper to increase speeds by 10, 20 or more mph here than it is in dense urban areas or through the Highlands.

Anyway, there is a point to mentioning the potential for p/way improvements here in this thread: If (just 'if') the HSTs were not completely abandoned but could be re-allocated to any less intensive services, then the very long-distance, non-electrified, high capacity routes with stretches of reasonably fast linespeed would be ideal routes for them. Aberdeen and Inverness would vie with Swansea and Falmouth as candidate destinations.
Who knows how the 'promises', 'commitments', 'aspirations' and 'proposals' for the next 10 or more years will actualy develop? But if there was an ongoing role for the HST (poss with some seriously re-worked doors!) then it may include work north of Edinburgh and west of Bristol, and if so, then linespeed enhancements where there is easier terrain to work in will ensure that the HST may still have a meaningful role to play in long-distance travel.

 

[The Planner]

Not heard that the GWML was supposed to be getting ERTMS.

Yep, as said, first mainline to be overlaid with it, a lot of prelim work is already underway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As Chiltern (and Roger Ford) think the Mk3 is still viable, I'm surpised Philip Hammond rejected the idea of a larger scale refurbishment for GWML.

More like that Chiltern can get hold of 67s and MkIIIs easier than they can get more units to increase passenger capacity.

 

[Aictos]

Do you have any suggestions as to where the 91s+Mk4s could go when they are cascaded off the ECML?

On the Midland Mainline and the Great Eastern Mainline, the 91s would be restricted to 110mph however if cascaded to the Great Western Mainlines would actually be able to still run at 125mph, I mean 140mph is a pipe dream and running at 125mph should mean the current timings ought to be kept or improved.

Yes I am aware that the likes of Penzance ain't going to be wired up but rather then only going as far with Bristol* with the wires, it would be nice if they continued to Exeter St Davids or even Plymouth where a diesel could couple to the train and drag the 91 DIT.

*I am referring to the route to Penzance and not Swansea.

 

[LE Greys]

why would slowing down for the Fife coast affect speeding up Arbroath-Dundee? They stop at Dundee (which has a slow bridge to the South of it anyway), then Leuchars, Kirkcaldy and Inverkeithing.

Also, there's four East Coast services each way Edinburgh-Aberdeen - there's a northbound from Leeds, and a southbound that terminates at Edinburgh. There's also a morning Northbound XC service that starts at Dundee, and a southbound evening one terminating at Edinburgh- makes for six services each way between Dundee and Aberdeen each day capable of using "HST" speeds- 50% more than your count!

There's crazy talk* of the Edinburgh-Glasgow mainline (via Falkirk) going 125mph when it is electrified- I've seen mention there that parts of the line (including between Edinburgh and Polmont junction) were previously rated for full speed HST operation, when they operated to Queen Street.

*crazy, because all the other services (Dunblane, Alloa, A-B plus Glasgow to the North) on the same tracks would be 100mph max and stopping.

macks forehead: I forgot about the North Briton and the balancing Voyager workings, but that's not really the point. What I meant was, why spend several millions of pounds saving two minutes north of Dundee when the really slow section is south of Dundee?

 

[ainsworth74]

Yep, as said, first mainline to be overlaid with it, a lot of prelim work is already underway.

Didn't know that, thanks for the info

 

[jopsuk]

The Great Eastern- is it primarily the quality of the line and OHL that limits speed (not to mention never having had faster stock allocated)? Isn't it mainly a pretty flat and not that twisty route? Or is it more that the relatively short distance means that minor speed improvements aren't worth?

 

[Aictos]

Yep, as said, first mainline to be overlaid with it, a lot of prelim work is already underway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


More like that Chiltern can get hold of 67s and MkIIIs easier than they can get more units to increase passenger capacity.

Pardon me for asking but how does ERTMS work with Dispatchers because at the moment, at locations there are requirements to check the signal before giving the close doors to the driver/guard, if there is no lineside signals as it's all in cab signalling then how are Dispatchers suppose to know if the signal is showing a proceed signal?

 

[tbtc]

More like that Chiltern can get hold of 67s and MkIIIs easier than they can get more units to increase passenger capacity.

True. I'm slightly surprised that the loco hauled sets with FGW aren't being taken up by any other TOC

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Also if your going argue speed then really there is no need for 140mph stock to be pottering around on the ECML or WCML at 115-125mph yet both 91s and 390s do quite happily. But I get your point ....

The 225s and 390s were designed to run with tilt on upgraded mainlines at 140mph, in both cases the trains were being built or in service when the faster line speeds were not implemented (and in the case of the 225s, tilt not retro-fitted), although flashing greens on a section of the ECML are still in use AFAIK. Tilt is not currently possible with the 91s though.

....I'm sure that NXEA would rather have more modern rolling stock but I don't know of any plans to replace the 90s+Mk3s directly so I would have thought the best they can hope for is cascaded 91s+Mk4s.....

Maybe so, but would they not have to clear the 225s along the route and make sure the sets can fit in Crown Point depot (IIRC there was an issue of length with the Mk3s).

....Either way I don't see why OAO should get first dibs on current rolling stock that could find use with other franchised operators. Do you have any suggestions as to where the 91s+Mk4s could go when they are cascaded off the ECML?

Personally I think they should stay put running alongside the HST replacement, meaning new trains can be bought for other areas. The GWML will doubtless end up with brand new stock, so any move there would be short term IMO.

But, if they have to go, it's not so much a question of OAOs being given first dibs, but rather a better way to use the stock IMO, they are already route cleared for the ECML. They could be used by Hull Trains and GC with a diesel to tow them off the wires (those areas may be wired in future anyway), or maybe other OAOs will appear to use them.

The other option is to increase high speed use along the WCML. The Mk4s could, with a bit of work, be made to use tilt as originally intended, although they may need to rebuild the 91s (to create the space for tilt and keep reliability), or replace them with tilting locos, for use on the longer range LM services, freeing up relatively new 350s for other work.

 

[The Planner]

Pardon me for asking but how does ERTMS work with Dispatchers because at the moment, at locations there are requirements to check the signal before giving the close doors to the driver/guard, if there is no lineside signals as it's all in cab signalling then how are Dispatchers suppose to know if the signal is showing a proceed signal?

ERTMS gives the driver the movement authority on the cab display as it will show the line speed it can go up to. If there is no authority given by the system you assume the signal is "red". Train dispatch would just check everyone is on board along with the guard i presume and that signal checking requirement would go. Its not a situation that currently happens so a rule book standard is likely to get written. Its a good few years away yet anyway.

 

[jopsuk]

Tilt is not currently possible with the 91s though.
....
The Mk4s could, with a bit of work, be made to use tilt as originally intended, although they may need to rebuild the 91s (to create the space for tilt and keep reliability), or replace them with tilting locos,

The 91s were never designed for tilt as I understand it- like the power cars on the 370. Tilt is a comfort thing for passengers.

 

[Aictos]

The 91s were never designed for tilt as I understand it- like the power cars on the 370. Tilt is a comfort thing for passengers.

I'm sure you're wrong there, the 91s as far as I was aware were designed for passenger services during the day and freight/sleeper services during the night but to also have the capability for tilt which was removed during the last GNER refurbishment of the 91s.

The Mk4 coaches which were built to operate with the 91s took a lot of influence from the APT with a example being with the Mark 4's profiled sides, which were intended to allow the retrofitting of tilt mechanism equipped bogies derived from the much criticised APT. This would have allowed up to 6º of tilt; modified coaches would then have been designated "Mark 4 T" but this plan was abandoned by BR in January 1986.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The 91s were never designed for tilt as I understand it- like the power cars on the 370. Tilt is a comfort thing for passengers.

Space was left for the fitting of equipment, but not used until GNER went about it's 'Mallard' refurbishments when the space was used for reliablity improvements instead (an extra grille is visible from the outside on one side).

 

[At_traction]

I'm sure you're wrong there, the 91s as far as I was aware were designed for passenger services during the day and freight/sleeper services during the night but to also have the capability for tilt which was removed during the last GNER refurbishment of the 91s.

Do you have sources for this? As the 91 was derived from the non-tilting middle power car of the APT-P (pantograph probs and all that old stuff), I doubt that BREL and Alssy would have wanted to make too much provisions for tilting, combined with a tilting high speed panto being made into a working power-collection equipment. As, moreover, the loco didn't necessarily have to be tilting (except to improve drivers' conditions), similarly to the Swedes' X2/X2000 HS locomotive, I'll need more convincing. Bring it on!
(Not that the oversized-looking bogies of the 91 would not have had space for tilt provisions...)

 

[jopsuk]

I'm sure you're wrong there, the 91s as far as I was aware were designed for passenger services during the day and freight/sleeper services during the night but to also have the capability for tilt which was removed during the last GNER refurbishment of the 91s.

The Mk4 coaches which were built to operate with the 91s took a lot of influence from the APT with a example being with the Mark 4's profiled sides, which were intended to allow the retrofitting of tilt mechanism equipped bogies derived from the much criticised APT. This would have allowed up to 6º of tilt; modified coaches would then have been designated "Mark 4 T" but this plan was abandoned by BR in January 1986.

Yes- and one of the things they took from the APT was non-tilting power cars. There's plenty of examples of non-tilting locos running around with tilting passenger stock- Talgo tilting train sets as used in Spain and the US for example.

 

[ainsworth74]

Personally I think they should stay put running alongside the HST replacement, meaning new trains can be bought for other areas.

Agreed wholeheartedly, I have no desire to move the 225s away from the ECML if that's an option!

But, if they have to go, it's not so much a question of OAOs being given first dibs, but rather a better way to use the stock IMO, they are already route cleared for the ECML.

Perhaps, but I would still rather they got use on a franchised operator rather than an OAO, espically seeing as the capacity of the 225s would at most times be far too much for both GC and HT.

The other option is to increase high speed use along the WCML. The Mk4s could, with a bit of work, be made to use tilt as originally intended, for use on the longer range LM services, freeing up relatively new 350s for other work.

Again 225s seem to me to be over kill on LM services and how practical (and also expensive) would it be to refit the Mk4s for tilt? As has been said above it appears that space provided for tilt was taken out during the Mallard work for other uses.

 

[Aictos]

Do you have sources for this? As the 91 was derived from the non-tilting middle power car of the APT-P (pantograph probs and all that old stuff), I doubt that BREL and Alssy would have wanted to make too much provisions for tilting, combined with a tilting high speed panto being made into a working power-collection equipment. As, moreover, the loco didn't necessarily have to be tilting (except to improve drivers' conditions), similarly to the Swedes' X2/X2000 HS locomotive, I'll need more convincing. Bring it on!
(Not that the oversized-looking bogies of the 91 would not have had space for tilt provisions...)

Space was left for the fitting of equipment, but not used until GNER went about it's 'Mallard' refurbishments when the space was used for reliablity improvements instead (an extra grille is visible from the outside on one side).

Enough said huh?

 

[At_traction]

Enough said huh?

Ehh, no. I said "sources".