LNER New Trains (2023-)

[Peter Mugridge]

To me it feels like the tender is written to get bi-mode FLIRT units.

If you take a Class 745 and add two power packs to it (between coaches D/E and H/J for example), the length of the unit is exactly 250 metres (assuming the information on Wikipedia is correct!).

A 200 km/h version of the FLIRT exists and there's probably enough room left in the 745 design to uprate it to 127 mph in electric mode. The extra length might mean that the Class 755 power packs can't provide the oomph needed to get up to 100mph or more, but 90mph might be doable.

Hmmm.... A possible DfT "guinea pig" for the Cross Country fleet in a few years from now...?

 

[HSTEd]

A 200 km/h version of the FLIRT exists and there's probably enough room left in the 745 design to uprate it to 127 mph in electric mode. The extra length might mean that the Class 755 power packs can't provide the oomph needed to get up to 100mph or more, but 90mph might be doable.

Two Class 755/4 power packs would have 3,840kW of installed diesel generator output.

That is more installed power than the engines on a HST set - and with modern traction systems the at rail power will be enormously higher.

I would be surprised if the train could not at least reach 110mph, and 125mph would not be surprising, although its power to weight performance under diesel might not be impressive by modern standards.

 

[MattRat]

Hmmm.... A possible DfT "guinea pig" for the Cross Country fleet in a few years from now...?

No. XC will either get cascaded units, or the cheapest possible unit (so these bi mode 397s most likely).

 

[Snow1964]

250m is easily done - 10 x 25m. Hitachi and presumably CAF can vary vehicle lengths. HS2 trains are likely to be 25m vehicles to get exactly 200m (8x25).

You misread the specs on the table page 153 of revised Franchise agreement with the new rolling stock to be ready by December 2025 change date, it is minimum 250m, not exactly 250m. So could simply have a 10car using existing 26m design

10 rolling stock units (comprising any number of vehicles) with a minimum length of 250m with an option for 5 additional such rolling stock units.

No fewer than 490 seats in 2+2 configuration (+ 2 wheelchairs) & no fewer than 100 First class seats in 2+1 configuration (+2 wheelchair)

Traction scheme 25Kv OLE Electric Mode and Self-Power Mode
Maximum speed in 25 kV AC OLE mode:  127mph
Maximum speed in Self- Power Mode:  90mph
Reliability: not less than 30,000 MTIN.
Controlled Emission Toilets (CET)
Passenger Information System (PIS)
Automatic Seat Reservation System
Automatic Passenger Counting System
Automatic Selective Door Operation (ASDO)
European Train Control System (ETCS)

replaces all IC225 rolling stock

An 11car version of the CAF 397 would seem to fit the requirements, as would a version of Stadler Flirt bi-mode with 2 power cars, then there is Alsthom with its Stream (is the dual power version called polyvalent?)

For an order of possibly just 100 vehicles, going to be variation of existing design, but if it was a few hundred vehicles with some new trains for cross country, might get a new design.

 

[Rhydgaled]

something fully electric for LNER, such as a longer 803 or 805 would have been nice

Yes it would. Unfortunately, I seem to recall there is a requirement for self-power functionality for more off-wire services so energy efficient electric IC225s are to be replaced by something lugging around lots of batteries and/or diesel engines.

If CAF are going to build the trains in Wales, I wonder if there will be a political fudge and about 10 class 800s get transferred from GWR to LNER (if it is mid 2020s, probably be close to being due a repaint anyway).

Given the issues of maintainance for micro-fleets, I think GBR needs to create a shared InterCity fleet for all the main lines. For example, rather than EMR, XC and LNER each having their own bi-mode fleets for their off-wire services (eg. summer extras to Skegness and St. Pancras to Lincoln for EMR) just have a common pool of bi-mode units maintained together for all three TOCs to use as required (particularly since EMR will have hardly any off-wire services once the wires get to Sheffield and Nottingham so would be running bi-modes under the wires most of the day just for the odd Lincoln, Melton Mowbray and Skegness services). Wires to Oxford, Bristol and Swansea would allow GWR to bring in some electric stock and release some bi-modes, although it might make more sense for XC to have those bi-modes as one of the Agility (Hitachi) depots that maintains those bi-modes is conveniently located for XC services (near Bristol Parkway).

1. Would it not have been possible to fit diesel power packs to the 801s whilst they undergo modifications to remedy the cracking issue, rather than having to procure an entirely new fleet with self-powered capability?

No, it wouldn't be possible. There are a number of structural differences, only one of which is that the cars carrying gensets need to have higher floors than normal.

I think you are both forgetting that the class 801s already have a diesel genset under one of the coaches (possibly even two of the coaches on the 9-car 801s, but I'm not sure about that). I know the class 801s are missleadingly called EMUs by some sources (even highly respected ones) and from an operational point of view they are but from a technical point of view they are bi-modes. I do wonder whether it would be feesible to shuffle either gensets or the genset vehicles (complete with genset) between units to create some true EMUs (with no gensets at all) and more full-spec class 800/802 bi-modes (with several gensets).

I thought (part of) york-Northallerton was capable of doing 140-150 mph (except for the signalling system, that is!), do you know what else is missing that would be required for the higher speed?

What sections that were intended to go 140mph in the 1990s?

There was the test section with the fifth aspect "flashing greens", but that was not intended for passenger services to run faster than 125mph, only specifically authorised test trains in controlled circumstances.

I'm pretty sure it was not just 'intended to go 140mph' but actually did for a time. http://www.traintesting.com/ic225_5.htm states that "the line speed between Peterborough and Grantham was increased to 140 mile/h to allow the 91's to show their paces" and "Many was the time we had to brake for the last curve in the Down direction (uphill) which had a 135 mile/h restriction". The way I understand it, the author is referring to a full change to the linespeed, not just specially authorised test runs, given he also says "We also undertook a few demonstration runs when we ran at 140 mile/h, where the line speed was 125 mile/h, all the way from KX to Edinburgh arriving there in the record time of three and a half hours!" which strongly implies that they were specifically authorised to exceed the 125mph linespeed in certain cases but also were able to run at 140mph on limited sections without such authorisation. This is also supported by the fact that there is a 140mph linespeed sign in the National Railway Museum. Of course, the linespeed may have been cut to 125mph before the IC225s entered passenger service but if so it is just unhappy chance that they never did 140mph in service.

Presumably the higher level of maintainance necessary to exceed 125mph has not been maintained however and you would not be able to do so now without increasing maintainance accordingly.

 

[Domh245]

Yes it would. Unfortunately, I seem to recall there is a requirement for self-power functionality for more off-wire services so energy efficient electric IC225s are to be replaced by something lugging around lots of batteries and/or diesel engines.

Depends - if the IC225s don't have regenerative braking (I'm fairly sure they don't - only rheostatic?) then I'd think that the energy returned from the regenerative braking will go an awful long way to offsetting the lost efficiency from the additional mass

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm pretty sure it was not just 'intended to go 140mph' but actually did for a time.

140mph was never authorised for regular timetabled use by passenger trains.


IIRC, The record run between Edinburgh and London was 3h29 with a specially shortened 91+MkIV rake, and had special authorisation for the higher speeds (above 140mph in some places). It is well documented, by Roger Ford (amongst others) who was on board. The ride was evidently quite lively.

 

[hexagon789]

Yes it would. Unfortunately, I seem to recall there is a requirement for self-power functionality for more off-wire services so energy efficient electric IC225s are to be replaced by something lugging around lots of batteries and/or diesel engines.


Given the issues of maintainance for micro-fleets, I think GBR needs to create a shared InterCity fleet for all the main lines. For example, rather than EMR, XC and LNER each having their own bi-mode fleets for their off-wire services (eg. summer extras to Skegness and St. Pancras to Lincoln for EMR) just have a common pool of bi-mode units maintained together for all three TOCs to use as required (particularly since EMR will have hardly any off-wire services once the wires get to Sheffield and Nottingham so would be running bi-modes under the wires most of the day just for the odd Lincoln, Melton Mowbray and Skegness services). Wires to Oxford, Bristol and Swansea would allow GWR to bring in some electric stock and release some bi-modes, although it might make more sense for XC to have those bi-modes as one of the Agility (Hitachi) depots that maintains those bi-modes is conveniently located for XC services (near Bristol Parkway).


I think you are both forgetting that the class 801s already have a diesel genset under one of the coaches (possibly even two of the coaches on the 9-car 801s, but I'm not sure about that). I know the class 801s are missleadingly called EMUs by some sources (even highly respected ones) and from an operational point of view they are but from a technical point of view they are bi-modes. I do wonder whether it would be feesible to shuffle either gensets or the genset vehicles (complete with genset) between units to create some true EMUs (with no gensets at all) and more full-spec class 800/802 bi-modes (with several gensets).



I'm pretty sure it was not just 'intended to go 140mph' but actually did for a time. http://www.traintesting.com/ic225_5.htm states that "the line speed between Peterborough and Grantham was increased to 140 mile/h to allow the 91's to show their paces" and "Many was the time we had to brake for the last curve in the Down direction (uphill) which had a 135 mile/h restriction". The way I understand it, the author is referring to a full change to the linespeed, not just specially authorised test runs, given he also says "We also undertook a few demonstration runs when we ran at 140 mile/h, where the line speed was 125 mile/h, all the way from KX to Edinburgh arriving there in the record time of three and a half hours!" which strongly implies that they were specifically authorised to exceed the 125mph linespeed in certain cases but also were able to run at 140mph on limited sections without such authorisation. This is also supported by the fact that there is a 140mph linespeed sign in the National Railway Museum. Of course, the linespeed may have been cut to 125mph before the IC225s entered passenger service but if so it is just unhappy chance that they never did 140mph in service.

Presumably the higher level of maintainance necessary to exceed 125mph has not been maintained however and you would not be able to do so now without increasing maintainance accordingly.

The 135 and 140mi/h sections was the test section, this was the stretch eqiped with the flashing greens. Other than authorise test trains, the ceiling was still 125mph.

And the requirement for cab signalling for speeds over 125mph pre-dates the IC225 project.

The record run was authorised 140 for the test section plus anywhere the normal linespeed of 125mph applied, all PSRs still applied.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Oct 2022 ==

140mph was never authorised for regular timetabled use by passenger trains.

Exactly.

 

[Trainbike46]

The 135 and 140mi/h sections was the test section, this was the stretch eqiped with the flashing greens. Other than authorise test trains, the ceiling was still 125mph.

But the fact that the test section existed (and by the sounds of it had 140mph running for at least a bit) suggests that, at least at the time, the track, overhead etc. was capable of handling 140 mph, so should hopefully, be able to be brought back into such a state without too much expense

 

[hexagon789]

But the fact that the test section existed (and by the sounds of it had 140mph running for at least a bit) suggests that, at least at the time, the track, overhead etc. was capable of handling 140 mph, so should hopefully, be able to be brought back into such a state without too much expense

But the key point is "for testing", it was in controlled circumstances and for a very limited number of trains. Moving to regular 140mph in normal service would increase the maintenance costs, I suspect the infrequent test runs (which after the 91s were all commissioned ahd full electric timetable came in would've been very few indeed, if any) could be tolerated on the maintenance then for 125mph running, also the catenary was brand-new.

 

[Bald Rick]

But the fact that the test section existed (and by the sounds of it had 140mph running for at least a bit) suggests that, at least at the time, the track, overhead etc. was capable of handling 140 mph, so should hopefully, be able to be brought back into such a state without too much expense

There were no changes to the infrastructure, except for the signalling (the flashing greens). There were also some operational changes, most notably that when any test running was taking place, staff were not permitted access to the track.

It was, by its nature, a test - to see what happened to the infrastructure etc.

 

[Trainbike46]

It was, by its nature, a test - to see what happened to the infrastructure etc.

were the results published at any point?

 

[Bald Rick]

were the results published at any point?

not that I’m aware of. Test results rarely are

 

[Trainbike46]

not that I’m aware of. Test results rarely are

Unfortunately, it would have been an interesting read!

 

[RailWonderer]

There were no changes to the infrastructure, except for the signalling (the flashing greens). There were also some operational changes, most notably that when any test running was taking place, staff were not permitted access to the track.

It was, by its nature, a test - to see what happened to the infrastructure etc.

I know the intention of the test was more to test the infrastructure than explore the possbility of raising speed limits in service but would the cost of upgrading the infrastructure vs the marginal amount of time gained be the reason the ECML upgrade hasn't been done? The WCML was in that spot before HS2 made the case for upgrading the WCML fully void.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is at least one useful diversionary route into Leeds that is not wired. The requirement for gensets or batteries (it seems open to either) will be to enable the flexibility of using this, as LNER do now with the 80x. (I have used LNER to Leeds only twice, one of which it was used, so either I was lucky/unlucky or it's not unusual).

Yes, wire it, but that isn't in LNER's gift. Which is a shame (as wiring the comparable WCML diversionaries has proven rather useful) but we are where we are.

Of course there are other advantages, e.g. if stuck for a long time without power toilets and aircon can remain operable.

 

[Rhydgaled]

if stuck for a long time without power toilets and aircon can remain operable.

I assume that the weight of batteries required to keep 'hotel power' functioning for an hour or two in that suituation would be significantly less than a diesel engine and fuel or sufficient batteries for traction purposes though ?????????????????

 

[YorksLad12]

Given the issues of maintainance for micro-fleets, I think GBR needs to create a shared InterCity fleet for all the main lines. For example, rather than EMR, XC and LNER each having their own bi-mode fleets for their off-wire services (eg. summer extras to Skegness and St. Pancras to Lincoln for EMR) just have a common pool of bi-mode units maintained together for all three TOCs to use as required (particularly since EMR will have hardly any off-wire services once the wires get to Sheffield and Nottingham so would be running bi-modes under the wires most of the day just for the odd Lincoln, Melton Mowbray and Skegness services). Wires to Oxford, Bristol and Swansea would allow GWR to bring in some electric stock and release some bi-modes, although it might make more sense for XC to have those bi-modes as one of the Agility (Hitachi) depots that maintains those bi-modes is conveniently located for XC services (near Bristol Parkway).

EMR would only be able to use one five-car or a nine-car set from that pool, because of the platform lengths at St. P. so they might as well keep their 810s, in case they got allocated elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I assume that the weight of batteries required to keep 'hotel power' functioning for an hour or two in that suituation would be significantly less than a diesel engine and fuel or sufficient batteries for traction purposes though ?????????????????

Did you read the bit about operational flexibility of diversions?

 

[zwk500]

I assume that the weight of batteries required to keep 'hotel power' functioning for an hour or two in that suituation would be significantly less than a diesel engine and fuel or sufficient batteries for traction purposes though ?????????????????

I suspect that the weight of traction-capable batteries is still less than the weight of Engine + Full fuel tank, which leads to another benefit of eliminating consumed fuel - the weight stays constant, therefore wear is more predictable. Predictable wear means preventive maintenance measures can be more effective.

 

[Mag_seven]

Just a reminder that this thread is specifically to discuss new trains for LNER.

If anyone wants to discuss anything else then they are welcome to start a new thread.

thanks

 

[Rhydgaled]

Did you read the bit about operational flexibility of diversions?

Yes, but:

a. LNER already have diesel engines on the 800s and 801s which with careful planning of engineering access to avoid multiple off-wire diversions on the same day (and possibly shuffling gensets between 801s to create some pure EMUs and some more 800s) should be able to cover diversion requirements and​

​

b. With the possible exception of Harrogate-York, I can't see any obvious diversionary routes that aren't recommended for electrification. Yes, you said electrification wasn't in LNER's gift but it shouldn't need to be - the infrustructure should be there for them. The UK already is committed to 186 high-speed bi-modes (80 class 800, 60 class 802, 13 class 805 and 33 class 810) and could perhaps increase that to around 200 if the gensets from 801s can be concentrated into fewer units without manufacturing any more gensets. In any sane world, that should be plenty of high-speed diesel units since the faster routes should be higher priorities for electrification.​

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but:

a. LNER already have diesel engines on the 800s and 801s which with careful planning of engineering access to avoid multiple off-wire diversions on the same day (and possibly shuffling gensets between 801s to create some pure EMUs and some more 800s) should be able to cover diversion requirements​

Not if it's an emergency diversion, or you want to keep hotel power going while stranded after a dewirement.

"Donkey engines" have really proven their value on the 80x to the point that I think they (or batteries) should be fitted to almost all new kit, certainly long distance. Just look at how many hundreds of hours of delay have been avoided by being able to fire up the diesels when the wires out of Paddington have had a problem.

Batteries will be better in the long term - and indeed this tender is for "self powered" units so we may well get batteries in these!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Not if it's an emergency diversion, or you want to keep hotel power going while stranded after a dewirement.

"Donkey engines" have really proven their value on the 80x to the point that I think they (or batteries) should be fitted to almost all new kit, certainly long distance. Just look at how many hundreds of hours of delay have been avoided by being able to fire up the diesels when the wires out of Paddington have had a problem.

Batteries will be better in the long term - and indeed this tender is for "self powered" units so we may well get batteries in these!

There's a reason I asked above about the weight of batteries for hotel power vs traction power. I am dead against the 'donkey engine' on the 801s as it adds weight, moving parts, maintainence complextity and greenhouse gas emissions for what I see as very little gain. Batteries to keep hotel power going for a few hours is potentially a very different story.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's a reason I asked above about the weight of batteries for hotel power vs traction power. I am dead against the 'donkey engine' on the 801s as it adds weight, moving parts, maintainence complextity and greenhouse gas emissions for what I see as very little gain. Batteries to keep hotel power going for a few hours is potentially a very different story.

Definitely better to allow it to move the train, if only at 25mph to the next station for an evacuation.

If every train had this sort of facility the impact of strandings would be massively reduced. It'd give you back the flexibility that used to exist when there was a pilot locomotive at most large stations you could send out to bring a stranded train in.

 

[Bald Rick]

With the possible exception of Harrogate-York, I can't see any obvious diversionary routes that aren't recommended for electrification.

The joint line via Lincoln won’t be seeing wires during the ‘booked’ life of these trains. Neither will the Durham Coast. Nor Carlisle to Edinburgh

 

[D6130]

The joint line via Lincoln won’t be seeing wires during the ‘booked’ life of these trains. Neither will the Durham Coast. Nor Carlisle to Edinburgh

Err....is Carlisle-Edinburgh not already electrified?

 

[43096]

The joint line via Lincoln won’t be seeing wires during the ‘booked’ life of these trains. Neither will the Durham Coast. Nor Carlisle to Edinburgh

I assume you mean Carlisle to Newcastle? Carlisle to Edinburgh has had wires for over 30 years!

 

[Neptune]

I suspect it’s a typo for Carlisle - Newcastle.

 

[Bald Rick]

Err....is Carlisle-Edinburgh not already electrified?

I assume you mean Carlisle to Newcastle? Carlisle to Edinburgh has had wires for over 30 years!

I suspect it’s a typo for Carlisle - Newcastle.

corrected, thank you.