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

[JonathanH]

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

Including a reveal on BBC TV Railwatch. It wasn't by accident that the primary focus of that week of programming was on the East Coast line.

 

[XAM2175]

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

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

The primary reasons for APT-P having tilting power cars were related to controlling track forces at high speeds, which is obviously very sensible, but the fact that Class 91s 1) wouldn't run as fast as APT-P, and 2) wouldn't encounter such large cant deficiencies as APT-P, made it less necessary.

The secondary reason is for reduction of aerodynamic drag, but again this is effect is lessened at lower speeds and by the fact that mismatch in profiles between an un-tilted 91 and a tilted Mk 4 rake was nowhere near as large as with APT-P.

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.

I'm sure I have somewhere a diagram illustrating that mechanism alone, but this one is nearly as good:

You can see the orange-coloured linkages between the bogies and the pantograph base, and the struts to fixed points inside the vehicle body.

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.

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.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a definitive answer to this, to tell you the truth. I certainly can't recall anything suggesting a solid plan to retrofit either the coaches or locos, though - everything I can remember reading points to passive provision in the design at the most, in expectation of an order for tilt-enabled Mk 4s for the WCML at some point in the '90s. I have a bunch of technical papers from the Class 91 development stashed away that I've been meaning to look over again so I'll come back with any updates if I find them (but don't hold your breath!)

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'm not sure of the point you're trying to convey here, other than complaining yet again about being "squashed".

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.

Mate, in the nicest possible way, you really are over-reaching with this. There's nothing special at all about push-pull configurations; after all, in overall theory, there's zero revolutionar change in IC225's configuration compared to a 47 with some Mk 2s and a DBSO at one end. Everything after that has simply been "change traction source and add speed". Even the 91s themselves were pretty traditional - yes, the body-hung traction motors were unusual, but the traction electronics were old hat compared to what ABB, AEG, and Siemens were doing with the ICE 1 power cars at the same time.

The only direct claim of genuine IC225 influence that I know of is that SIG further developed the BT41 bogie from the Mk 4s into a higher-speed version called the SIG 300 that DB were going to trial for use as the primary ICE trailer bogie in the mid-'90s, but even then I don't know what actually came of it.

 

[DarloRich]

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.

but at the time of ECML electrification the battle for BR was to keep the MML open. It wasn't that long ago that (IRC) there were plans/suggestions to close sections of it ( Serpell?). It wasn't a busy line and was treated a almost secondary. I also think ( but dont know) that once the APT was abandoned the curvey nature of the MML meant that electrification was felt too expensive due the level of track work needed to deliver a benefit with conventional trains. The ECML had P-WAY work done in increments from the 1960's to improve running speeds that benefited the HST

Also one of the drivers for the ECML electrification was (IRC) to get to the north east/Yorkshire/Scotland in 3 hours to beat the airlines. The challenge on the MML is to beat the M1 which the HST could do

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Mar 2023 ==

Including a reveal on BBC TV Railwatch. It wasn't by accident that the primary focus of that week of programming was on the East Coast line.

of course! i had forgotten that ( Paul Coia was it?)

 

[YourMum666]

but at the time of ECML electrification the battle for BR was to keep the MML open. It wasn't that long ago that (ORC) there were plans/suggestions to close sections of it ( Serpell?). It wasnt a busy line and was treated a almost secondary.

Also one of the drivers for the ECML electrification was (IRC) to get to the north east/Yorkshire/Scotland in 3 hours to beat the airlines. The challenge on the MML is to beat the M1 which the HST could do

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Mar 2023 ==


of course! i had forgotten that ( Paul Coia was it?)

fair enough, i didn’t know much about this

 

[Ken H]

but at the time of ECML electrification the battle for BR was to keep the MML open. It wasn't that long ago that (IRC) there were plans/suggestions to close sections of it ( Serpell?). It wasn't a busy line and was treated a almost secondary. I also think ( but dont know) that once the APT was abandoned the curvey nature of the MML meant that electrification was felt too expensive due the level of track work needed to deliver a benefit with conventional trains. The ECML had P-WAY work done in increments from the 1960's to improve running speeds that benefited the HST

Also one of the drivers for the ECML electrification was (IRC) to get to the north east/Yorkshire/Scotland in 3 hours to beat the airlines. The challenge on the MML

The MML I remember was mostly cl 45/46 and early aircon Mk 2's The HST's were a big step forward. Getting 110 out of them on the sinuous MML was a good step up too.

 

[DarloRich]

fair enough, i didn’t know much about this

No worries - BR did a really good job at getting investment despite the political challenges they faced. that Wolmar book is worth looking out for an accessible history on BR. It is hardback so get it from the library. I don't always agree with him but his history is certainly accessible and well written.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

King's Cross/Moorgate-Royston (suburban) was electrified in 1978 using class 312/313s, while St Pancras/Moorgate-Bedford was not till 1983 with 317s (and DOO).
So the ECML had a head start on intercity electrification, with resignalling for the whole route well in hand.

The MML only gets you to Leics/Derby/Notts/Sheffield.
The ECML gets you much further, notably to Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh which are much bigger revenue generators.
After Edinburgh-Carstairs was electrified it also connected up the ECML and WCML networks in Scotland.
Operationally, BR Inter City ran the MML in tandem with Cross-Country (MXC).

 

[yorksrob]

but at the time of ECML electrification the battle for BR was to keep the MML open. It wasn't that long ago that (IRC) there were plans/suggestions to close sections of it ( Serpell?). It wasn't a busy line and was treated a almost secondary. I also think ( but dont know) that once the APT was abandoned the curvey nature of the MML meant that electrification was felt too expensive due the level of track work needed to deliver a benefit with conventional trains. The ECML had P-WAY work done in increments from the 1960's to improve running speeds that benefited the HST

Also one of the drivers for the ECML electrification was (IRC) to get to the north east/Yorkshire/Scotland in 3 hours to beat the airlines. The challenge on the MML is to beat the M1 which the HST could do

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Mar 2023 ==


of course! i had forgotten that ( Paul Coia was it?)

And Mike Smith.

Great programme !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Mar 2023 ==

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?

They were and they did.

But without the disruption caused by privatisation, Trans Pennine does seem like it could have been a logical follow on.

 

[YourMum666]

King's Cross/Moorgate-Royston (suburban) was electrified in 1978 using class 312/313s, while St Pancras/Moorgate-Bedford was not till 1983 with 317s (and DOO).
So the ECML had a head start on intercity electrification, with resignalling for the whole route well in hand.

The MML only gets you to Leics/Derby/Notts/Sheffield.
The ECML gets you much further, notably to Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh which are much bigger revenue generators.
After Edinburgh-Carstairs was electrified it also connected up the ECML and WCML networks in Scotland.
Operationally, BR Inter City ran the MML in tandem with Cross-Country (MXC).

I would’ve electrified manchester to leeds over Edinburgh - Glasgow

 

[GRALISTAIR]

As far as I am concerned, the IC225 project was a great success. It got the ECML electrified too which absolutely needed to happen.

 

[coppercapped]

I'm not sure I've ever seen a definitive answer to this, to tell you the truth. I certainly can't recall anything suggesting a solid plan to retrofit either the coaches or locos, though - everything I can remember reading points to passive provision in the design at the most, in expectation of an order for tilt-enabled Mk 4s for the WCML at some point in the '90s. I have a bunch of technical papers from the Class 91 development stashed away that I've been meaning to look over again so I'll come back with any updates if I find them (but don't hold your breath!)

Right - that was the expression I was trying to find 'passive provision'. Thank you!

I don't think that there was a solid plan to retro fit the tilting equipment to the 91s on the East Coast route but the design was at least 'future proofed'. Which only goes to show that asking for things to be 'future proofed' is probably pointless...!

 

[43096]

Right - that was the expression I was trying to find 'passive provision'. Thank you!

I don't think that there was a solid plan to retro fit the tilting equipment to the 91s on the East Coast route but the design was at least 'future proofed'. Which only goes to show that asking for things to be 'future proofed' is probably pointless...!

I am assuming that the tilt provision on the 91s was the control equipment and power supplies to power the tilt equipment on the Mark 4s, rather than themselves tilting.

The planned/ordered/cancelled HST-E power cars had provision for a tilt equipment power supply included in their design, as they were intended for working with APT-U trailers.

 

[YourMum666]

I am assuming that the tilt provision on the 91s was the control equipment and power supplies to power the tilt equipment on the Mark 4s, rather than themselves tilting.

The planned/ordered/cancelled HST-E power cars had provision for a tilt equipment power supply included in their design, as they were intended for working with APT-U trailers.

HST E? what kind of project was that

 

[43096]

HST E? what kind of project was that

It was an electric version of the HST power car. It got as far as being ordered, but was never built.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, a great success.

IMO BR should’ve electrified the MML before the ECML

That was the plan until 1983.

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

That was (almost) the plan when it was initially submitted to Government for authority: Class 89s, the Mark 3 trailers from the existing HSTs, and electrification to Leeds and Newcastle. Loco changes at Newcastle for Scotland services.

a separate investment submission was made to electrify Newcastle - Edinburgh. This was authorised concurrently, and announced as one package. The 225s came later.

An absolute success: delivered roughly on time and roughly on budget.

The ‘on budget’ bit is a stretch to say the least. Original authority was £306m IIRC, the out turn was nearly double that.

 

[DarloRich]

The ‘on budget’ bit is a stretch to say the least. Original authority was £306m IIRC, the out turn was nearly double that.

i did say "roughly" I will have to double check the figures. I didn't think it was that far over the top.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Tricky one

If the criteria for success include “lasting in service longer than expected” And “passenger numbers went up during their operation” Then they were a success… But then the same could be said about 142s, so maybe that’s not a great benchmark!

The problem with the 91s was that they were probably introduced on the ECML with the expectation that by mid-life they could be cascade onto services we now treat as TPE/ XC/ MML (or London-Hull etc), but the government hadn’t electrified these so there was no obvious home (esp with ex-WCML locos on Norwich-London trains), meaning the 91s stayed on frontline ECML services beyond their prime

The EMR and GWR HSTs were far, far more past their prime when removed from London services than the IC225s were when the Azumas first came out.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2023 ==

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.

I completely agree. HSTs don’t mean much to me but I’ve always found the IC225s to be impressive and in good condition for their age. The VTEC fleet/pre-Azuma LNER fleet consisted of two different train types which from an average passenger perspective were pretty much the same except one looked and felt more tired.

In the words of my mother, July 2017, when seeing an ex-Leeds HST stopping at Newark from the window of our Edinburgh 225. “Oh god, look at that old thing, I’m glad we’re not on that.” She was born in the late 70s not long after HSTs were built, though wouldn’t have had a clue about the trains growing up and lived in Manchester away from the ECML anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2023 ==

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.

I’ve had several experiences of the same thing travelling with VTEC and LNER.

The IC225 has always been the flagship of the ECML, and if it doesn’t get a send off like the LNER HSTs did or better, then it’s bad really, as HSTs were far less relevant to this particular route than the 91+MK4s.

 

[D365]

What has perhaps been less successful is the way much of the fleet has found itself scrapped after finishing ECML service. Some further life on secondary routes would have extracted a little more value out of the fleet.

I'm always puzzled by these sorts of remarks. The Class 91s were designed for a 30 year lifespan, which they've more-or-less all reached. I think Eversholt got their money back!

 

[trebor79]

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

Not really, tilting doesn't alter the track forces in any way, just improves comfort for passengers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2023 ==

I'm not sure I've ever seen a definitive answer to this, to tell you the truth. I certainly can't recall anything suggesting a solid plan to retrofit either the coaches or locos, though - everything I can remember reading points to passive provision in the design at the most, in expectation of an order for tilt-enabled Mk 4s for the WCML at some point in the '90s. I have a bunch of technical papers from the Class 91 development stashed away that I've been meaning to look over again so I'll come back with any updates if I find them (but don't hold your breath!)

Right - that was the expression I was trying to find 'passive provision'. Thank you!

I don't think that there was a solid plan to retro fit the tilting equipment to the 91s on the East Coast route but the design was at least 'future proofed'. Which only goes to show that asking for things to be 'future proofed' is probably pointless...!

Didn't the 91/1 refurbishment involve removing a transformer and various other items that were to be used for driving tilt packs?

 

[Bald Rick]

Not really, tilting doesn't alter the track forces in any way, just improves comfort for passengers.

That’s one way of looking at it. But not one a track engineer would agree with

 

[YourMum666]

What has perhaps been less successful is the way much of the fleet has found itself scrapped after finishing ECML service. Some further life on secondary routes would have extracted a little more value out of the fleet.

There should have been those planned GC Padd-Cardiff trains operated by 91s

 

[JonathanH]

There should have been those planned GC Padd-Cardiff trains operated by 91s

That particular plan was not very well developed. It isn't clear that they had identified a suitable depot on the route.

 

[trebor79]

That’s one way of looking at it. But not one a track engineer would agree with

Haha! Point taken!

 

[YourMum666]

My question about the 91s is that why didn’t BR continue the APT-S design, but with unarticulated coaches (so an APT loco, 9 cars and a APT DVT) instead of making a whole different loco/ rake of trains

 

[43096]

My question about the 91s is that why didn’t BR continue the APT-S design, but with unarticulated coaches (so an APT loco, 9 cars and a APT DVT) instead of making a whole different loco/ rake of trains

There was an unarticulated APT design, known as APT-U.

 

[YourMum666]

There was an unarticulated APT design, known as APT-U.

the APT-U had two locos instead of a DVT

 

[43096]

the APT-U had two locos instead of a DVT

Yes, and the trailers were not articulated.

 

[YourMum666]

Yes, and the trailers were not articulated.

wasn’t the APT-S unarticulated as well or could be designed to have unarticulated coaches?

 

[XAM2175]

My question about the 91s is that why didn’t BR continue the APT-S design, but with unarticulated coaches (so an APT loco, 9 cars and a APT DVT) instead of making a whole different loco/ rake of trains

wasn’t the APT-S unarticulated as well or could be designed to have unarticulated coaches?

In a lot of ways IC225 is a continuation of the APT-S design - just modified to the reality that a train derived directly from APT-P would inherit a heap of design decisions optimised for very-high-speed running. Look at this list of changed requirements between APT-P and its eventual successor:

• No longer needed to have a design maximum speed of 155 mph (or APT-P's theoretical capability for 185 mph max);
• No longer needed the 1.4 m/s^2 deceleration rate required for 155 mph running on existing signal spacings;
• No longer needed to allow for lengthened variants (APT-P allowed up to 14 coaches with two power cars);
• No longer needed to manage 9 degrees of tilt, only 6 at the most;
• No longer needed to allow for worst-case tilt failure causing vehicles to become locked at maximum tilt, and;
• No longer needed to allow for a very-high-speed kinematic envelope.

Removing the high-speed and extended-length requirements means you only need one power car, as was already planned, but in particular removing the high-speed requirement - and with it the higher-rate-of-braking and the super-low-weight requirements - means that you no longer need the hydrokinetic brakes, because ordinary discs will do fine and their weight distribution disadvantage no longer matters. The relaxation of the top speed and weight requirements also means that articulation loses most of the advantages that otherwise make up for its inconvenience. And obviously, if you no longer need to make the coaches as small as APT-P's, why would you chose to keep using that compromise design?

(we can also be thankful that the relaxation of APT's diet rules meant that the Mk 4s got ordinary retention toilets, rather than chemical ones)

Anyway, the APT loco and DVT you mention weren't ever seriously designed - sure, there are some concept illustrations and you might find a few general arrangement sketches if you dig around in the RTC or M&EE or BREL archives - so they would have been "a whole different" loco and coach themselves.

 

[greyman42]

I’ve heard the same person remark ‘is that new’ watching a freshly painted 225 roll in

Indeed. I have heard them referred to as "them new comfy ones".