Was the IC 225 project the success BR thought it would be

[bramling]

Talking ten years to reach their prime. Never becoming as iconic or well remembered as the HST*. Becoming trapped by their inflexibility, limited by their number, but with their USP never realised. Then being the face of Top Link privatisation anyway, and then symbolic of it's inevitable failure to hasten a new golden age (even as the Itlian built successors to the APT did just that over the road).

Suffering ugly repaint after ugly repaint in their eventual prime, and finally being partly replaced by HSTs. And thereafter by technology the 225 designers would see as exceedingly unambtious, even though in their latter days they were running on government owned metals and run by government owned drivers....

...I think it all adds up to a very depressed BR Head of IC225 Project.

* that in particular has got to really annoy BR people, since that was in essence a product of failure of the APT (admittedly not a BR design but definitely a BR flagship just like 225) while the HST was an unambitious stop gap that became quite literally a roaring success and could have even prevented privatisation.

Whilst there’s a lot of truth to the above, I’d say that’s a rather “glass half empty” summary. Whilst the premise of the thread is how BR would have viewed the IC225, the ultimate judge of success is the experience the trains delivered to the passenger as end user. I’d say most passengers found them pretty decent.

 

[DanNCL]

Talking ten years to reach their prime. Never becoming as iconic or well remembered as the HST*. Becoming trapped by their inflexibility, limited by their number, but with their USP never realised. Then being the face of Top Link privatisation anyway, and then symbolic of it's inevitable failure to hasten a new golden age (even as the Itlian built successors to the APT did just that over the road).

Suffering ugly repaint after ugly repaint in their eventual prime, and finally being partly replaced by HSTs. And thereafter by technology the 225 designers would see as exceedingly unambtious, even though in their latter days they were running on government owned metals and run by government owned drivers....

I wouldn't agree with this. The HST is only as well remembered as it is because of how ubiquitous it was across the country, if the HST had only seen use on the ECML it wouldn't be any more iconic than the 225s are now. The 225s then heralded in under privatisation a new era spanning two decades of growth on the ECML and a renaissance of train travel. Project Mallard with the 225s on the ECML was as much of a success as introducing the 390s was on the WCML (which were mostly buily in the UK not Italy). The financial difficulties suffered by the private TOCs on the route are all down to the DFT encouraging overbidding not the rolling stock.

HSTs did not replace 225s in any form. The 'extra' HSTs on the ECML in the 2000s and 2010s were first to replace the 373s, and then to provide extra capacity. Ultimately you could say not enough 225s were built. And in any case there'd still have been a role for HSTs on the ECML without wires to Aberdeen at the bare minimum.

 

[Fleetmaster]

I think every child more fondly remembers a HST over a 225 even if they were only ever exposed to them on the ECML, which was my childhood.

I dare say, stood side by side in terminal platform, 9 out of 10 passengers will have wrongly assumed the HST is the more modern and certainly much faster train.

I know for a fact "225" meant nothing to most people, even those who knew what 125 meant!

It all goes into the mix of memorability. If almost nobody remembers you at all, least of all fondly, you can't be rightly considered a total success, surely?

Nobody wants to be known as the unsung hero, boringly dependable, least of all the people setting out to design a flagship.

 

[bramling]

I think every child more fondly remembers a HST over a 225 even if they were only ever used on the ECML.

I dare say, stood side by side in terminal platform, 9 out of 10 passengers will have wrongly assumed the HST is the more modern and certainly much faster train.

I’m not sure that’s the case. Amongst non-enthusiasts, I’d say most people round here remember the IC225s arriving, along with the blaze of publicity which accompanied them at the time.

For most ECML users the IC225s were the type of Intercity train they would see or use most over the last 30 years simply because they outnumbered the HST fleet (as well as a proportion of the HST fleet being out of sight to most users when spending part of their day north of Edinburgh). HSTs looked and felt old largely because of features like the slam doors, which don’t forget for those born from the 80s onwards would be quite a sharp anachronism unless you happened to have lived south of the Thames, in Essex, or perhaps around Bradford, at some point.

It may well be the case that HSTs are iconic to enthusiasts, and perhaps to users in areas like the western region where they dominated for much longer, however for anyone early middle age or lower who has lived on or used the ECML I wouldn’t say HSTs are regarded as anything special at all.

 

[Ken H]

I’m not sure that’s the case. Amongst non-enthusiasts, I’d say most people round here remember the IC225s arriving, along with the blaze of publicity which accompanied them at the time.

For most ECML users the IC225s were the type of Intercity train they would see or use most over the last 30 years simply because they outnumbered the HST fleet (as well as a proportion of the HST fleet being out of sight to most users when spending part of their day north of Edinburgh). HSTs looked and felt old largely because of features like the slam doors, which don’t forget for those born from the 80s onwards would be quite a sharp anachronism unless you happened to have lived south of the Thames, in Essex, or perhaps around Bradford, at some point.

It may well be the case that HSTs are iconic to enthusiasts, and perhaps to users in areas like the western region where they dominated for much longer, however for anyone early middle age or lower who has lived on or used the ECML I wouldn’t say HSTs are regarded as anything special at all.

Some of us have seen the transitions. Deltics and EE type 4's > Deltics + cl 47 and aircon Mk 2s > Deltic + 8 > HST > Cl91 + Mk 4 > IET.
Each was a step forward. Without the ones before, each generation would have been difficult
But HST saved the Inter City business. Without that the railway would now be largely commuter networks round Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. IMHO
Sorry, I dont remember steam on the main line except the odd portion working from Bradford to Leeds - to add to services to London and the South West.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I dare say, stood side by side in terminal platform, 9 out of 10 passengers will have wrongly assumed the HST is the more modern and certainly much faster train.

I doubt that very much. I’ve heard the same person remark ‘is that new’ watching a freshly painted 225 roll in, whereas they’ve said ‘how old is this’ boarding a creaky HST.

 

[XAM2175]

Modern Railways once published what was said to be BR's InterCity cascade plan and clearly stated the intention was to move the IC225 stock (locos and coaches) to the WCML, the coaches on tilting bogies. As far as I can remember faster non-tilting stock would have replaced it on a significantly improved and resignalled ECML. Fairly certain the author of the article was Roger Ford
This would have been either before or just after the 91/mk4 sets entered service and clearly marked them as an ECML stopgap which would only reach their full potential with tilt on the WCML

I was unaware of that. I'll assume it was before the first ones appeared in 1988 because I don't recall reading anything from that time (when I started taking a lot of interest). It makes sense because the IC225 was essentially a development of what APT-S (for Squadron) was envisioned to be.

Oh, and it was yet another example of narrow, tapered-in stock we all had to sit squished into for all this time because it needed to tilt - which of course it never did and was not even built for. So why the restricted body profile?

The rationale given by BR M&EE in 1984 - by which time APT-S had morphed into IC225 but everything else was still a bit malleable - was that it would be most cost-effective for BR if the Mark 4 was designed in both tilting and non-tilting variants, so that it could be ordered for both the West and East Coasts and thus achieve a greater economy of scale in manufacturing. This was made aided by the discovery, based on results from APT-P testing, that it wasn't necessary to compensate for the full 9 degrees of cant deficiency that APT-P did; rather, you could compensate for 6 degrees with precedence-controlled active tilt and just ignore the last 3.

IIRC a bit more space was also allowed by the reduction in top speed to 140 mph, which correspondingly reduced the coaches' kinematic envelope, and also by removing the design allowance for hard-over tilt failures (falling back to a simple "tilt failed" rather than "actively wrongly tilted").

At that point there was also a school of thought that tilt might have delivered worthwhile journey time improvements on the Newcastle - Edinburgh section of the ECML, though this was obviously later found not to be the case.

And if you'll indulge me a bit of speculation - tilting IC225 sets might have also been a viable option had MML electrification occurred as a follow-up to the ECML, as I believe was the case in some of BR's wish-lists.

and the fact that they never lived up to the “225” name

They got one to run at 260 km/h, did they not? Faulting them for BR not providing a 140 mph route is a bit unfair unless you're willing to fault 390s and IEPs on the same grounds.

I think it's slightly unfair to say BR failed to run at 140mph, when they tried and found the technology [they could afford at the time] lacking.

Exactly.

The mk3 use a BREL bogie (BT10?), but the mk4 doesn't, because a suitable one (T4?) wasn't ready or wasn't acceptable for 140mph use?

The SIG bogies are coded BT41. T4 was a BREL design.

Though not officially cited as such, the 225s influenced the design of the Austrian Railjets which are themselves successful record breakers like the 225s

Ehhh, this is a tiny bit of a reach, I think, as much as I agree that IC225 was a solid bit of work. The push-pull concept isn't unusual in and of itself; hell, it's probably how APT-P would have been configured had BR not decided to specify 155 mph as the top speed. Any influence there was definitely took a big detour through ICE 2.

It is fair to say though that with Taurus Siemens did achieve the original IC225 goal of deploying a multi-purpose locomotive.

Suffering ugly repaint after ugly repaint in their eventual prime,

Yes, the VTEC livery in particular made them look exceptionally dowdy.

I dare say, stood side by side in terminal platform, 9 out of 10 passengers will have wrongly assumed the HST is the more modern and certainly much faster train.

This, however, is laughable.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Would the 91s have been able to be retrofitted with tilting equipment in the same way as the Mk IVs?

 

[43096]

There’s a very good legacy left by the 225s. Even if nothing like them has been built for the UK since, they proved that 225kmh loco hauled sets were viable.

They didn't, as they never ran at 225km/h in squadron service.

Though not officially cited as such, the 225s influenced the design of the Austrian Railjets which are themselves successful record breakers like the 225s, and

Not officially cited as such, because there is absolutely no connection - you have just made it up. The chances that Siemens and ÖBB looked at the 225s is laughable - the 140mph design that only does 125mph isn't an obvious reference point. You might just as well claim that the 225s influenced DB's 101s and the two Metropolitan sets.

the Railjets have gone on to achieve some of what the 225s were intended to achieve but didn't, such as locomotives coming off high speed coaching sets in the evening and running freight overnight.

Evidently you know little about Railjet operation. The Railjets are largely formed up as fixed formation sets with loco+set matched: they are not routinely coming off the sets for overnight freights. What ÖBB's large Taurus fleet does give is contingency: they can swap a Railjet dedicated loco off for a non-Railjet-dedicated one if needed.

 

[randyrippley]

Would the 91s have been able to be retrofitted with tilting equipment in the same way as the Mk IVs?

no, they were designed as non-tilting
I guess it would have been too difficult to build inside a tapered tilting body profile

 

[gabrielhj07]

no, they were designed as non-tilting
I guess it would have been too difficult to build inside a tapered titled body profile

It seems strange that a consist of mixed tilting ability would be suitable for higher speeds.

 

[randyrippley]

It seems strange that a consist of mixed tilting ability would be suitable for higher speeds.

More than a bit rough for the driver

 

[YourMum666]

weren’t the 91s going to be like what the 90s are right now, they were going to be used on freight and passenger services on the WCML?

 

[Taunton]

I wonder if it was just that tilting/140mph/narrow coach bodies in the theoretical calculations gave an advantage over what they had at that moment, 125mph, and this was part of the justification. Knowing it was beyond physics for multiple parts of the equation (bogies, signalling, etc) would be lost on the paymasters in Whitehall, but a rebuttal was needed to "125mph electrification is no faster than what you have got at the moment so why spend the money?". So hey ho, the passengers will have to sit all squashed up for the next generation, but we will have got our electrification.

I wonder how much was in the budget to eliminate the level crossings (and Newark flat crossing) for 140mph, which the ECML was laced with (and still is, of course).

 

[Helvellyn]

In a different universe ECML electrification saw 125mph Class 89s and Mark 3Cs (think loco-hauled 442 coaches).

 

[YourMum666]

In a different universe ECML electrification saw 125mph Class 89s and Mark 3Cs (think loco-hauled 442 coaches).

God, class 89s are so ugly

 

[43096]

Mark 3Cs (think loco-hauled 442 coaches).

Or think UK gauge Irish Mark 3s?

 

[randyrippley]

Or think UK gauge Irish Mark 3s?

those plug doors were too slow, would have increased the station dwell time

 

[dosxuk]

It seems strange that a consist of mixed tilting ability would be suitable for higher speeds.

Something shared with the APT - the power cars weren't designed to tilt, partly due to the additional complexity of getting the pantograph to not tilt if mounted to a tilting body.

 

[DanNCL]

Not officially cited as such, because there is absolutely no connection - you have just made it up. The chances that Siemens and ÖBB looked at the 225s is laughable - the 140mph design that only does 125mph isn't an obvious reference point. You might just as well claim that the 225s influenced DB's 101s and the two Metropolitan sets.

If what you're seriously trying to suggest is that one 140mph push pull design didn't take any influence from the only two other 140mph push pull designs then you clearly lack understanding of how product design is done. All good manufacturers in all industries look at what's been done before, look at what comparable products got right and got wrong and design accordingly. So granted they may not have specifically designed the Railjets to resemble the 225s, I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise, but to suggest that Siemens didn't as much as study the 225s (and the X2000s for that matter) when working on the Railjets and take some inspiration from them is mad. DB's IC1 sets are more akin to the 110mph WCML push-pull sets in that they were mostly formed of existing coaching stock, they weren't designed as fixed formation sets either even though that's how they operate now.

Evidently you know little about Railjet operation. The Railjets are largely formed up as fixed formation sets with loco+set matched: they are not routinely coming off the sets for overnight freights. What ÖBB's large Taurus fleet does give is contingency: they can swap a Railjet dedicated loco off for a non-Railjet-dedicated one if needed.

Many 1216s are booked to come off the sets at night and work freight and Nightjets. 1116s not so much, but it does happen.

I guess it would have been too difficult to build inside a tapered tilting body profile

The 91s have the same tapered body profile as the Mark 4s even though they weren't intended to tilt.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

DB's IC1 sets are more akin to the 110mph WCML push-pull sets in that they were mostly formed of existing coaching stock, they weren't designed as fixed formation sets either even though that's how they operate now.

The OP wasn’t referring to the DB IC sets he was referring to the 101 hauled Metropliation sets which were a very different beast being far more akin to an ICE set.

 

[43096]

but to suggest that Siemens didn't as much as study the 225s (and the X2000s for that matter) when working on the Railjets and take some inspiration from them is mad.

If you’re bringing X2000 into it - which is single ended power car/loco+stock - then the more likely influence is ICE 1/2 design in which Siemens had a major hand.

What is mad is suggesting a link between things where you have no evidence.

 

[sprinterguy]

Would the 91s have been able to be retrofitted with tilting equipment in the same way as the Mk IVs?

The existing mark 4s weren't intended to be retrofitted with tilt (as I once believed - like some others on this thread I'm unaware of any ECML to WCML cascade plan as mentioned on page 1 of this thread), any tilting mark 4s would have been new build. In either case, the class 91s would not have been tilt fitted.

Something shared with the APT - the power cars weren't designed to tilt, partly due to the additional complexity of getting the pantograph to not tilt if mounted to a tilting body.

The APT-P power cars did tilt: There's a diagram out there somewhere that I can't find right now that shows the mechanism used to keep the pan head level, mechanically linked to the bogies.

 

[gabrielhj07]

The existing mark 4s weren't intended to be retrofitted with tilt

Oh right, the tapered body being for ease of construction then I assume?

 

[sprinterguy]

Oh right, the tapered body being for ease of construction then I assume?

Yeah, less development and construction cost in sticking to one bodyshell profile for both non-tilting and (prospective) tilting variants (As XAM2175 describes in more detail above): Think class 220 and 221.

 

[BrianW]

Some of us have seen the transitions. Deltics and EE type 4's > Deltics + cl 47 and aircon Mk 2s > Deltic + 8 > HST > Cl91 + Mk 4 > IET.
Each was a step forward. Without the ones before, each generation would have been difficult

My uncle was a top-link driver out of York. For him, no looking back when the Deltics came in- so much better than steam! No smoke, smuts, howling gales, rain ...

 

[DarloRich]

There is an interesting section about ECML inecltificiation Woolmars new book on BR. Worth looking out.

An absolute success: delivered roughly on time and roughly on budget. Main issue is the over specing to 140 mph running that wasn't practical.

BR promised so much with the 91s.

And delivered most of it within the budget that was allocated

with the failure of the locos due to snow leaking into intakes during bad weather,

once or twice! it wasn't a regular occurrence.

IMO BR should’ve electrified the MML before the ECML, have wires run to leeds and in a later ECML electrification have the wires join up with the MML at Doncaster. There’s more justification having the midland mainline be electric over the east coast, especially because it covers more populated cities than the ECML. Then you can make a justification for the ECML being electrified. BR made a big mistake prioritising the east coast over the midlands

On what do you base that view? MML benefited from the cascade of HST after ECML electrification that helped improve services. At that point it was very much a secondary route.

the Manchester - Leeds Corridor (should’ve also been done with the ECML i agree, would’ve been a good east-west coast mainline connection

The government of the time weren't going to fund that.

I just believe they electrified the east coast way too early

On what basis? You do know it was planned for electrification immediately after the WCML electrification in the 1960's don't you? it took until the mid 80's for the funding to be approved.

BR shot themselves in the foot by not electrifying the ECML for 140mph running in mind

Who was paying for that? I think you need to read more around the subject and understand the funding constraints and the political atmosphere BR was working within. They did a bloody good job getting ANY funding for this project which they delivered roughly on time and roughly on budget.

As mentioned above Christina Woolmar's book on the history of BR that has just come out is a good place to start. It isn't too detailed and is an easy read.

why not build in cab signalling into the locos, like the APT, it had in cab signalling/ speed limits

Because there was no money at the time. I am sure the aspiration was to go back later and get the money but that was lost due to privatisation.

That is how public funded capital projects sometime have to work. You take what you can get and try for more later rather than take nothing now and get nothing later. The Tory government of the time were not going to give BR the money to do the signalling work so they took the electrification money, stretched it out almost to breaking point and delivered ( for the whole ECML) an upgraded line and new trains. it was good enough not the perfection posters here seem to want in everything.

but they didn’t do what BR intended for them to do, they didn’t live up to the 225 title, hopefully the azumas get 140 on the ECML

They delivered what the funding allowed and kept doing so for 30 years. That will do for me.

Amongst non-enthusiasts, I’d say most people round here remember the IC225s arriving, along with the blaze of publicity which accompanied them at the time.

Yes - there was a blaze of publicity and excitement around electric trains being introduced and a great deal of community engagement by BR

Deltics and EE type 4's > Deltics + cl 47 and aircon Mk 2s > Deltic + 8 > HST > Cl91 + Mk 4 > IET.

While not quite that old i have seen most of those ( first journey on ECML behind a dietic in my first weeks!)

Fair point. ECML should have been a starting point for wider electrification in the North.

But were the Leeds area electrifications not exactly this?

I assume WYPTE put up some of the coin for the work and IRC had plans for more work but the government cut off funding ahead of privatisation. Is that not one of the reasons why York > Leeds was not electrified at the time?

 

[YourMum666]

There is an interesting section about ECML inecltificiation Woolmars new book on BR. Worth looking out.

An absolute success: delivered roughly on time and roughly on budget. Main issue is the over specing to 140 mph running that wasn't practical.


And delivered most of it within the budget that was allocated

once or twice! it wasn't a regular occurrence.

On what do you base that view? MML benefited from the cascade of HST after ECML electrification that helped improve services. At that point it was very much a secondary route.

The government of the time weren't going to fund that.

On what basis? You do know it was planned for electrification immediately after the WCML electrification in the 1960's don't you? it took until the mid 80's for the funding to be approved.

Who was paying for that? I think you need to read more around the subject and understand the funding constraints and the political atmosphere BR was working within. They did a bloody good job getting ANY funding for this project which they delivered roughly on time and roughly on budget.

As mentioned above Christina Woolmar's book on the history of BR that has just come out is a good place to start. It isn't too detailed and is an easy read.

Because there was no money at the time. I am sure the aspiration was to go back later and get the money but that was lost due to privatisation.

That is how public funded capital projects sometime have to work. You take what you can get and try for more later rather than take nothing now and get nothing later. The Tory government of the time were not going to give BR the money to do the signalling work so they took the electrification money, stretched it out almost to breaking point and delivered ( for the whole ECML) an upgraded line and new trains. it was good enough not the perfection posters here seem to want in everything.

They delivered what the funding allowed and kept doing so for 30 years. That will do for me.

Yes - there was a blaze of publicity and excitement around electric trains being introduced and a great deal of community engagement by BR

While not quite that old i have seen most of those ( first journey on ECML behind a dietic in my first weeks!)


But were the Leeds area electrifications not exactly this?

I assume WYPTE put up some of the coin for the work and IRC had plans for more work but the government cut off funding ahead of privatisation. Is that not one of the reasons why York > Leeds was not electrified at the time?

I believe the midland mainline should’ve been done right after the west coast because there was more of a reason to do it, it goes through 5 of (excluding manchester) of the biggest cities in the UK, the route is also very curvy and should’ve gotten wires before the ECML, the midland mainline is almost as busy as the west coast, don’t get me wrong they should’ve wired up the east coast, but not before the midlands. So i would’ve wired up the midlands as far as leeds before the ECML.

 

[sprinterguy]

I believe the midland mainline should’ve been done right after the west coast because there was more of a reason to do it, it goes through 5 of (excluding manchester) of the biggest cities in the UK, the route is also very curvy and should’ve gotten wires before the ECML, the midland mainline is almost as busy as the west coast, don’t get me wrong they should’ve wired up the east coast, but not before the midlands. So i would’ve wired up the midlands as far as leeds before the ECML.

At the time the East Coast main line was being electrified, the Midland Mainline had just one train every 90 minutes to each of Nottingham and Sheffield (With a St Pancras - Leicester short working every 90 minutes to give a 30 minute frequency between London and Leicester). The service beyond Sheffield to Leeds was all of two trains a day.

In terms of comparisons with the West Coast, frequencies out of Euston were lower in BR days but still at least 5 trains per hour: Even today the MML isn't anywhere close: 4 long distance services an hour out of St Pancras, formed of 5/7-car diesel units, equating to 22 carriages per hour, against at least 7 long distance services an hour out of Euston, formed of 9/11-car Pendolinos, equating to around 69 carriages per hour.

In fact based on those basic figures it would seem that capacity between the WCML and MML has largely been maintained at a ratio of around 3:1 in favour of the West Coast over the course of those decades, just with an overall increase in service frequency and demand for travel.

Even after the introduction of HSTs in the eighties, the MML remained a backwater compared to the demand for long-distance travel engendered by the HST introduction on the ECML. The cost-benefit analysis for wiring the East Coast was always going to represent the stronger case.

 

[coppercapped]

no, they were designed as non-tilting
I guess it would have been too difficult to build inside a tapered tilting body profile

I don't have my old magazines to hand but IIRC space was allocated within the body for the addition of tilting equipment, rams and such like, in the event of retro-fitting or to be used if a follow-on build were to be 'tiltable' (if that's a word?!). Don't forget that the transformer was under the floor so quite a lot of space was available.

In the event the space was used up by re-arranged and additional equipment during the heavy overhaul in the early 2000s so from then onwards tilting was no longer easily possible (fsvo 'easily').