Alternative to IEP Program

[Nym]

We're about to hit a big problem when the Mk3 carrages can't be used any more, due to DDA requirements, and becoming cheaper for ROSCOS to use newer coaches to escalating maintence. As far as I can see there are a few options, and a few problems...

Chiltern Railways want LHCS for the Birmingham services, but already have a locomotive contract

Virgin Rail Group need LHCS for their cover set, and already have a locomotive contract

WAG Express uses LHCS and already has a locomotive contract

The new IEP program will not solve the problem where Mk3 will be life expired, and DEMUs sacrifise passenger comfort, so what can be done...

1) The IEP Program, all bi-mode as the goverment seems to want.
All very well and good, will allow half hearted electrification of great western routes and electrification in stages for other parts of the network, and will basically be semi fixed formations of EMUs with Diesel Generators.

2) A new unpowered Mk6 Coach, 23m long, no DVT or DBSO available

3) A new unpowered Mk6 Coach, passthrough for AAR, TDM and other control systems. DVTs available, able to operate with new locomotives and old AAR and TDM compatable Locomotives

4) A new unpowered Mk6 coach, as (3) but with facility to later add traction packages, for distributed traction, basically designed as such with modules removed

5) A new powered Mk6P coach, powered by busbar from a transformer/loco and generator/loco as a new generation, but not to be run in fixed formation and able to be re-martialled quickly, with auto-couplers. Facilitating quick locomotive changing

6) Semi Fixed formations of Mk6P Coaches, with a driving cab at either end of the formation, but not power supply, a locomotive to supply power to distributed traction from front or rear of sets so for diesel and electric routes, eg, Paddington - Swansea via Bristol Parkway, with say, wires terminating at Parkway. Electric Loco/Transformer at the rear, driven from the 'front DVT', drives up to and autocouples with the diesel (as with (5)), elecric de-couples and is left at Parkway and driven away on the Diesel.

7) ??? Any other ideas?

 

[Zoe]

Sorry but we are not going to see a loco and stock solution. As discussed at length in other threads, DMUs/EMUs are superior in every way possible. Also why did you skip over Mark 5 to get to Mark 6?

 

[TheWalrus]

why did you skip over Mark 5 to get to Mark 6?

Because I think a Mark 5 was designed before but was never built.

 

[jopsuk]

It was proposed- I'm not sure there were ever any technical designs, just a small mock up and a couple of artists impressions.

 

[Zoe]

The Mark 5 was proposed but as none were ever built I don't see there would be an issue with using the designation. It's a bit irrelevant though as we all know there will never be a new built of loco and stock.

 

[Nym]

Nightstar carrages where Mk.5 and if they want to reduce costs Intercity EMUs with big generator coaches proberbly isn't the awnser...

Option 6 would be similar to the IEP but with a couple of sensible changes...

 

[Zoe]

Nightstar carrages where Mk.5

Were they ever designated as such? They seem to just be a modified Mark 4.

 

[tbtc]

We're about to hit a big problem when the Mk3 carrages can't be used any more, due to DDA requirements, and becoming cheaper for ROSCOS to use newer coaches to escalating maintence. As far as I can see there are a few options, and a few problems...

Chiltern Railways want LHCS for the Birmingham services, but already have a locomotive contract

Virgin Rail Group need LHCS for their cover set, and already have a locomotive contract

WAG Express uses LHCS and already has a locomotive contract

So there are currently half a dozen sets of coaches needed, maximum, and one of those is used for one journey a week...

...not really worth building a whole new set of coaches, is it?

 

[mallard]

This is silly. The only one of those options that is even remotely feasible is option 1. The only other option that was considered for through trains was EMUs plus locos to drag beyond wires.

Unlike when the WCML was wired in the 60s, the modern railway just isn't set up for in-service loco changes. Changes to signalling, track layout at stations, new sidings, more complex diagramming, etc. would be needed and this extra cost makes a bi-mode train a better option.

Bi-mode trains allow lines to be electrified in stages, without having to budget for new trains each time (and allows for one unified train fleet). When the whole area that a bi-mode operates is wired, the diesel equipment can be removed. It also allows for through trains onto branch lines that could never justify electrification.

 

[starrymarkb]

If you are thinking of something like the new Austrian RailJet stock, remember that ÖBB had overordered Taurus locomotives 10 years earlier and so it was the cheapest option for them. We don't have a large fleet of 140mph high power locomotives sitting idle...

 

[Aictos]

Personally speaking, a mass order of 390s should be considered as a tried and proven design and simply drag it over yet to be electrified lines or lines that never will see wires as that has to be more value for money then any IEP order.

The 390s run in fixed formations so besides being a high speed EMU, it's this operational ease which make them so damn attractive to Virgin besides the design obviously!

 

[junglejames]

The best option all round is a brand new HST. Diesel of course.
Then when we get round to needig new electric trains, well either new EMUs or new electric loco and coaches.

Bi mode is just making it complicated. The HSTs were so good because of their simplicity. Thats what we need now. Bi mode should be scrapped.

EMUs and DMUs are not always superior. How about passenger comfort? Also, acceleration will always be better if you overpower a train, like on the Voyagers etc.

If we go bi mode, or DMUs in any way at all, then it isnt a replacement for the HST. It'll be a bog standard local DMU on long journeys. Like the voyager for example.

 

[Zoe]

EMUs and DMUs are not always superior. How about passenger comfort? Also, acceleration will always be better if you overpower a train, like on the Voyagers etc.

Trains are for getting people from A to B in the most efficient way possible. A DMU will always be superior at this to a loco hauled solution.

 

[jopsuk]

Personally speaking, a mass order of 390s should be considered as a tried and proven design and simply drag it over yet to be electrified lines or lines that never will see wires as that has to be more value for money then any IEP order.

The 390s run in fixed formations so besides being a high speed EMU, it's this operational ease which make them so damn attractive to Virgin besides the design obviously!

Or even better than simply dragging, get the locos set up for proper push-pull off the wires.

 

[Chafford1]

Well this is what we're likely to get - JP on the UK Railways site is 'the man in the know'!

The IEP is being tightly specified by the DFT. The latest re-specification see's the design frozen round 5 car Voyager type trains intended to replace 8 and 9 coach HSTs. The DFT see's these trains as their own project and they will specify how they are used, crewed and maintained.

Very few EMU versions will be built under the DFT plans for the old WR. A large number of expensive to buy, expensive to maintain EDMUs will used. HSTs to be rebuilt (again) for services to the South West. The extra cost of these two aspects of the project would electrify many more miles of railway making vastly cheaper pure EMU working possible across more of the region.

The next bit will result in possibly the most stupid aspect of the project. The MML will be electrified, good. Pantograph cars will be inserted into the 222 fleet, okay, but pricey since Bombardier have cut up the jigs in Bruge. The 222s will then be transferred to OC and Laira to take over services to the South West allowing HST to be withdrawn.

Those expensive pantograph cars being used as far as Newbury, where the diesels take over. In fact the engines will be switched on at Reading as they need time to warm at idle according to Cummins. This now introduces a very mixed fleet operating on the old WR, requiring two new depots. (Hitachi building two to maintain IEP) ABSOLUTELY BLOODY MAD!!

All this after Bombardier/Siemens and Alstom were forbidden to put variations to the spec. on the bids they submitted, the Japanese, no problem. The offer to build a "flat pack" factory in the North East ignores the threat to British HIGHLY SKILLED jobs in Derby, Stafford,Crewe and other places where we do already take part in multi-national train projects. The IEP orders will see people employed for perhaps 10-12 years building the wrong train for the UK, and very unlikely to win orders elsewhere in the EU, who quite rightly look to their own already competitive train industry to supply their needs. NOTE-The Japanese do not buy European built trains.

The IEP hit all sorts of problems quite early on, the sheer cost and complexity of what was being proposed should have killed it off in favour of a properly planned progressive electrification and replacement train programme. At every turn this one small department within the DfT headed by this "Hitachi" loving Civil Servant has changed the rules. The Japanese we are now hearing are offering to take on some Eurofighter Typhoons that were destined for the RAF to allow the MOD to make zero cost defence cuts, and then part pay for the trains.

Any journalist asking awkward questions is then banned from Hitachi/ Civil Service briefings, heads of TOCs are summarily summoned to the DFT to be told what they will have to do to with regards to the IEP, it is as if Stalin is having a role in replacing the HST!

Rolling electrification is cheaper, creates skilled jobs and allows high quality trains to operate at much lower cost. Whole life costs are much lower. Energy security is also improved, what will the cost of diesel be in 6 weeks, let alone 10 years?

The pure EMU with loco haulage at the "edges" was considered but rejected, the reasons for rejection were not disclosed, but we understand one of them was that there is 'No domestic loco building capability." Really? HST rebuilding was originally rejected as too expensive, then suddenly became cheaper when the latest option was unveiled. The corrosion issues on the Mk3 coaches has somehow become a non-problem according to the DFT. If that is the case then the low cost rebuilding of those HST power cars to act as EMU haulers (2 power cars with new cabs coupler gear overhauled and coupled back to back) should also be a "non-problem".

The question must be asked, why is the DFT, or should I say, this person within the DFT going to so much trouble to see that the Japanese get to build the wrong type of train for the UK? A train that we will have to live with for the next 40 odd years.

 

[Zoe]

What we haven't been told is the maximum speed when running on diesel. It would seem reasonable if it is only 90 mph or 100 mph as that would explain why none are to be oredered the West of England services as 110 mph on diesel would have been required for this.

 

[Lampshade]

Why can't they just build a large new fleet of ten car 222s (with pantograph coach) and be done with it? :?

 

[asylumxl]

What we haven't been told is the maximum speed when running on diesel. It would seem reasonable if it is only 90 mph or 100 mph as that would explain why none are to be oredered the West of England services as 110 mph on diesel would have been required for this.

]

How many 110mph sections are there on the B&Hs line? I was under the impression there were few sections, and what sections there are, are relatively short.

 

[LE Greys]

Personally speaking, a mass order of 390s should be considered as a tried and proven design and simply drag it over yet to be electrified lines or lines that never will see wires as that has to be more value for money then any IEP order.

The 390s run in fixed formations so besides being a high speed EMU, it's this operational ease which make them so damn attractive to Virgin besides the design obviously!

Now that makes some sense. If we get a bunch of 390/1s they would probably be a better product than the current units, simply because the manufacturers would have learnt from their mistakes first time around. While the windows might not be bigger, they could certainly sort out the internal arrangements, provide an improved buffet car and make them all 11-car from the outset. Electrify the whole Great Western and the Aberdeen Road, so that we can have 390s operating out of King's Cross and Paddington. Having dealt with that, get on and electrify the Midland, then cascade the 91s there for a while. That gives time to develop a lighter-weight EMU for both the Midland and East Anglia, replacing both 90s and 91s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

]

How many 110mph sections are there on the B&Hs line? I was under the impression there were few sections, and what sections there are, are relatively short.

Remember that Pendys tilt. With them in operation, we could be looking at 4 hours or less to Penzance.

 

[junglejames]

Trains are for getting people from A to B in the most efficient way possible. A DMU will always be superior at this to a loco hauled solution.

Depends how many coaches you need. Too many coaches, and a DMU is going to use more fuel, and cost more to run.
So no, a DMU wont always be superior.
They are superior when it comes to local stopping services. Intercity operations should not be DMUs for numerous reasons. Passenger comfort, and the numbers of passengers usually being conveyed.

Oh, and your comment about what trains are for is wrong. It entirely depends what trains we are on about. However, as far as our privatised rail system goes, you are right. They dont give 2 hoots about passenger comfort.

 

[tbtc]

Intercity operations should not be DMUs for numerous reasons. Passenger comfort, and the numbers of passengers usually being conveyed

That's very subjective. The "number of passengers" depends on the number of coaches, surely? Build DMUs long enough and they will cope - don't make the mistake of thinking Voyagers are the longest DMUs can be...

As for "passenger comfort", doesn't that depend mainly on the type of seats/ legroom etc? No reason why a DMU/ loco-hauled would be better/worse...

 

[Zoe]

]
How many 110mph sections are there on the B&Hs line? I was under the impression there were few sections, and what sections there are, are relatively short.

There are three 110 mph sections on the Berks and Hants, one in the Newbury area and another two between Pewsey and Westbury. There is also a 110 mph section between Uphill and Huntspill for trains running via Bristol.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Remember that Pendys tilt. With them in operation, we could be looking at 4 hours or less to Penzance.

I'm not sure you'd get 125 mph running on the Berks and Hants or in the Dawlish area or from Newton Abbot to Plymouth even with tilt. In any event I expect Plymouth to be as far as the wires will ever go.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Trains are for getting people from A to B in the most efficient way possible. A DMU will always be superior at this to a loco hauled solution.

Until one vehicle develops a fault, then the whole set is out of service. With loco hauled stock, into the depot it goes, the pilot knocks the defective coach out, and the remainder can be back in service inside an hour.

 

[MCR247]

You know what electrifying the GWML is a crap idea. Simple as.

Imagine if someone came onto here with a thread like this (n offence ATW Alex!) but slightly different like this:

OMG I HAve a gr8 idea!!!!1!!!!!

so, basicly i have a really good idea where what the goverment shud do, is electrify this line, where trAINS go to loads of destinations, and they don't share the same line for vry long! That way, they use the elektric for about 1 hour, and then go to diesel! Only 2tph will useit all the way! It is also no were nr any other electrik lines!!

I fink that electrifyin the Mml is stupid,even tho it already partly done, and could b a gd diversion route, and the trains are alredy compatible

Isnt it just a great idea?!!!!!1!1111111

^That person would get shot down in flames in less than ten minutes

Where as electrifying a line which
- is already partly done
- Has mostly compatible stock
- Would be a useful ECML diversion route
- Has a much longer 'core' (100miles v 35)

But there you go...

 

[ainsworth74]

You know what electrifying the GWML is a crap idea. Simple as.

Not that your biased by your location of course

Where as electrifying a line which
- is already partly done
- Has mostly compatible stock
- Would be a useful ECML diversion route
- Has a much longer 'core' (100miles v 35)

But seriously, why oh why are we doing the GWML over the MML?

 

[Zoe]

But seriously, why oh why are we doing the GWML over the MML?

MML electrification was considered but it was decided that due to recent improvements on the MML the GWML should have priority.

 

[starrymarkb]

MML has Modern 222's on most services. GWML expresses are all HST (which are getting on a bit)


ooh my L33T post (1337)

 

[tbtc]

You know what electrifying the GWML is a crap idea. Simple as.

Imagine if someone came onto here with a thread like this (n offence ATW Alex!) but slightly different like this:



^That person would get shot down in flames in less than ten minutes

Where as electrifying a line which
- is already partly done
- Has mostly compatible stock
- Would be a useful ECML diversion route
- Has a much longer 'core' (100miles v 35)

But there you go...

When you put it like that, GWML electrification has a weak business case. The only justification for it is that the HSTs are getting old, other than that it's weak.

The MML electrification is much stronger (fewer lines need doing, 99% of services run on the "core" section, rather than all the branches the GWML has, already electrified at both ends etc).

When will politicians/ DFT realise that "sharing electrification round the country" isn't an efficient way of replacing diesel trains with electric ones?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

MML electrification was considered but it was decided that due to recent improvements on the MML the GWML should have priority.

I'm really not sure what the improvements have been (a few things, like a new platform at Chesterfield, but nothing major)

 

[Zoe]

Maybe they could order some IEP units for the MML though to replace HSTs. These could run on electric power as far as Bedford.

 

[MCR247]

I don't see why don't just do the MML, order some more DEMUs with panto wells for GWML to replace the HSTs, then if they feel like wiring later, just add the actual panto, no excuse about coaches cant be made, engines etc, and then add on a few to replace the MML HST, and just add the panto