91+Mk4s instead of SuperExpress

[TheWalrus]

Hi all

Recently I have been looking at alternatives to IEP, Following the review of the other options in a recent edition of Modern Railways. It appears That a SuperExpress costs much more in terms of running costs and production, and with a top speed of just 125mph (although this can be improved) the value-for-money element of IEP is questionable.

Modern Railways stated the 2 cheapest options would be to life-extend HSTs or build more; or the IC225s. Personally more or life-extended HSTs brings us no progress on railway development or green issues. This leads me to believe that IC225s - with a top speed of 140, low track access costs, reasonably cheap to run and good reliability - could form a basis for a new train. However certain modifications would need to be made to make this worth doing. This would include things such as in-cab signalling, possible changes to exterior/interior design of the carriages and DVT, if the DVT could be longer with a certain amount of seats inserted.

If a lot of money could be saved on stock, we could spend more money on more stock and more electrification. This would overall give a better return on the investment of electrification and new stock, while addressing cost issues, green issues and other issues within the railway service, and also improving journey times between major cities, as well as smaller communities.

What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks,

Ryan

 

[Crossforth]

As much as I like the idea, I can't see it happening

 

[gordonthemoron]

and exchange the electric loco for a reasonably powerfull diesel one to continue the trains journey beyond the OHLE. Retains the possibility for through traisn without running diesels under the wires or hauling electric locos off the wires.

Whilst Class91s have not been produced for about 20 years, doesn't the eurosprinter have a top sped of 125-155 mph?

 

[TheWalrus]

and exchange the electric loco for a reasonably powerfull diesel one to continue the trains journey beyond the OHLE. Retains the possibility for through traisn without running diesels under the wires or hauling electric locos off the wires.

Whilst Class91s have not been produced for about 20 years

I'm suggesting more electrification to be brief.

It probably wouldn't be 91s, but something based on the 91 design with various modifications.

 

[First class]

Could the 92s not be used more than at present?

Personally, I think they should be on the FSR sleeper with the 90s going elsewhere.

 

[atomicdanny]

I'm sure that these (the Superexpress) were apparently similar to the Javelins in someway , although on the wiki page (I know its wiki!), it does mention 140mph which would make sense if they are similar to the 395s though?

Maximum speed 125 mph (201 km/h)
140 mph (225 km/h) with minor modifications

edit - it also says the same on the fact sheet as well?
http://www.agilitytrains.com/assets/pdf/AT-090205-Key_Facts-Released-1_5.pdf

 

[Geezertronic]

How does acceleration and braking of this formation compare to the EMU's (such as Class 390's or 395's) though? I would have thought a loco at one end and a DVT at the other wouldn't compare favourably given the examples that we see on the WCML when the "Pretendolino" set replaces a 390 (and the Friday only 1846 diagram is timed to be slower than the time for a 390).

I don't know what the timings are like on the ECML but I would suggest a 390 or 395 could be timed quicker given the WCML experiences?

 

[Crossforth]

A class 90 has a lower top speed compared to a 390 or 91+MK4 at only 110mph compared to 125mph

 

[TheWalrus]

Personally I would prefer a new fleet of 390s to IC225s. However they are considerably more expensive.

 

[Geezertronic]

A class 90 has a lower top speed compared to a 390 or 91+MK4 at only 110mph compared to 125mph

I guess what I am basically saying is can a loco hauled train (whatever the specification of the loco) compete with an EMU such as the 390 or 395 in terms of the speed of acceleration and braking?

Or would EMUs be more viable to increase the performance of service in general?

Or even would an electric version of the HST (with a power car at each end that is) be more viable (as long as it is not IEP)?

 

[A60K]

I'm sure that these were apparently similar to the Javelins in someway

There is nothing in Britain that shares anything other than basic standard equipment (eg AWS) with the Javelin Class 395 trains, as they're a unique design from Japan specifically for Britain. A Class 395 is at best a first or second cousin to some of the Japanese domestic trains.

 

[Helvellyn]

I don't think you could build new HSTs or Class 91s/Mark 4s because of the changes in crash worthiness standards since these units were build. I don't thing grandfather rights would exist to build new vehicles to the old standards after such a long period of time, and you'd have to question would it be really worthwhile doing so?

It's a shame that the Class 444 jigs were destroyed by Siemens, as an a.c. version (Class 344?) would have been ideal for London-Norwich and London-Cambridge services, two routes I believe were beiong considered for IEP type trains.

With uncertainty about Great Western and Midland Mainline electrification there could be an argument to a new build of Meridians (Though they'd have to have new engines to meet latest emission standards) to replace the remaining EMT HSTs. The EMT fleet could then be used to maybe give East Coast a couple more sets. More importantly it could allow some power cars and coaches to be broken up for spares to help keep the East Coast, CrossCountry and Great Western sets in service longer. This could then allow Great Westerb electrification to be done a few years later (when the economy picks up) and a new long distance train specifically for the EC and GW mainlines could be designed and built. The IEP was meant to be too many things - not always good because you can end up with too many compromises.

 

[anonymous0101]

How does acceleration and braking of this formation compare to the EMU's (such as Class 390's or 395's) though? I would have thought a loco at one end and a DVT at the other wouldn't compare favourably given the examples that we see on the WCML when the "Pretendolino" set replaces a 390 (and the Friday only 1846 diagram is timed to be slower than the time for a 390).

I don't know what the timings are like on the ECML but I would suggest a 390 or 395 could be timed quicker given the WCML experiences?

A class 91 has relatively poor acceleration when compared with the latest EMU's. This is because it only has 4 powered axles available. Distributed traction is usually favoured on modern emu's. I personally think fast acceleration and raising speed through curves and/or realignment is the way forward. An increase to 140 will not really bring any substancial time savings. I also read somewhere Pendolino's are very eco friendly as their brakes are regenerative and they use very little energy compared with other forms of traction.

Incidentally its the high powered diesel units such as Voyagers which are least efficient.

 

[atomicdanny]

There is nothing in Britain that shares anything other than basic standard equipment (eg AWS) with the Javelin Class 395 trains, as they're a unique design from Japan specifically for Britain. A Class 395 is at best a first or second cousin to some of the Japanese domestic trains.

I was talking about the Superexpress though , not the class 91

 

[RobShipway]

There are some Chinese built trains both diesel and electric that are suppose to be able to 125mph plus. Aren't these worth looking into or for that matter any of the european designed 125mph plus trains, rather that having to buy specific build trains?

Also, may have siemens build an express version of the Class 380?

 

[swt_passenger]

It's a shame that the Class 444 jigs were destroyed by Siemens, as an a.c. version (Class 344?) would have been ideal for London-Norwich and London-Cambridge services, two routes I believe were beiong considered for IEP type trains.

Cambridge was definitely an IEP candidate, but I've never heard of Norwich being mentioned in the context of IEP, probably as the line speed isn't high enough?

However an AC 444 equivalent is definitely mentioned in the Anglia RUS. This supposed issue with the jigs is irrelevant IMHO; new jigs can be built from their drawings by Herr Siemens anytime a big enough order is signed. If another manufacturer won the order for x number of 5x23m end doored express EMUs, they'd be needing new jigs anyway...

 

[Ricardo]

A class 91 has relatively poor acceleration when compared with the latest EMU's. This is because it only has 4 powered axles available. Distributed traction is usually favoured on modern emu's. I personally think fast acceleration and raising speed through curves and/or realignment is the way forward. An increase to 140 will not really bring any substancial time savings. I also read somewhere Pendolino's are very eco friendly as their brakes are regenerative and they use very little energy compared with other forms of traction.

Incidentally its the high powered diesel units such as Voyagers which are least efficient.

Regenerative braking is par for the course on all recently-constructed EMU stock, and indeed I believe that some late BR models were so equipped too (although I may be wrong). The trouble with the Pendos is their colossally heavy weight per seat, which increases their power requirements, though this seems to aid crashworthiness (Greyrigg).

Agreed on the benefits of faster acceleration (and dare I say it, later/ harder braking?) and easing of curves for faster schedules. The modern railway is not able to "clear the decks for the express", and there are fewer fast services than there used to be, hence stop-start performance rather than sustained speed is of ever rising importance.

And, from that point of view, what type of existing UK stock is better for these types of operations on 125mph, 25kv electrified mainlines than the class 395? As well as being very quick off the mark (between say 60 and 100+ mph, I reckon their acceleration would give a lot of less powerful cars a run for their money) they have the right door configuration for dealing with high passenger flows, the ability to work in multiple (economical and environmentally friendly for commuter routes where demand is lower in the middle of the day) and (IMO) the nicest interior of any train on the UK network. I'd be happy to spend a lot longer than 40 minutes on one.

I could definitely see a place for 395s on longer distance stopping/semi-fast services on fast electrified lines in future. Suggestions would include

• Birmingham-Northampton-London Euston;
• Birmingham-Liverpool;
• Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh (if the proposed infill electrification in the north-west goes ahead)
• Glasgow-Edinburgh (once electrified, as per the Scottish Governments plans)
• London-Cambridge;
• London-Derby/Nottingham (if the MML is electrified);
• London-Oxford (if the GWML is electrified); and
• London to Norwich (maybe).

Their deployment on the MML could be aided by indirect (but relatively easy) access to the Ashford Depot via St Pancras HS Domestic and HS1, so in theory (if there is spare depot capacity at Ashford) a fairly small order for Javelins for the MML would be possible, without necessarily needing the expense of a full-feature depot for maintenance. This would enable a hypothetical electro-222 cascade, replacing the remaining HSTs, for (probably) not as much cost as many of the other options.

 

[tbtc]

There's nothing wrong with the 225 model - I'd build more like them and concentrate on a robust railway that makes efficient use of paths to give maximum capacity rather than worrying about the marginal gains of running at 150mph (or whatever).

 

[starrymarkb]

The trouble with the Pendos is their colossally heavy weight per seat, which increases their power requirements, though this seems to aid crashworthiness (Greyrigg).

IIRC Roger Ford calculated that a 26m non tilt Pendolino trailer would be lighter per seat then a Mk3. Tilt Gear adds a lot to the weight.

For collosall weight see the ICE1 - their coaches tipped the scales at 60t

 

[route:oxford]

There's nothing wrong with the 225 model - I'd build more like them and concentrate on a robust railway that makes efficient use of paths to give maximum capacity rather than worrying about the marginal gains of running at 150mph (or whatever).

The "225" is indeed a good model.

Given the improvements in power distribution technology though, is it not more likely that the DVT would gain powered axles?

 

[tbtc]

The "225" is indeed a good model.

Given the improvements in power distribution technology though, is it not more likely that the DVT would gain powered axles?

Quite possibly, yes. But there's not much more I'd change about the 225s; very good at what they do - I'd have built a fleet of them for the WCML too (and ignored tilting and higher top speeds - tilting saves you time but it eats into paths when the other trains on the line don't tilt)

 

[Drsatan]

Since the class 91 locomotives were built over 20 years ago, it would not be viable to construct similar locomotives since the design has been superseded by more modern ones. Therefore, to replace the 91s, why not order a European design of electric locomotive (like the Siemens Taurus: Siemens have designed a scaled-down version to fit the UK loading gauge) and operate them with new Mk5 coaches and DVTs? This seems more cost-effective than the IEP

 

[The Planner]

Which is why its pretty rare to find a non-tilt train on the fasts south of Crewe unless there is a margin for it.

 

[Geezertronic]

London Midland do operate some services on the WCML South Fasts between Euston and before the junction towards Northampton (where I presume they move over and join the Slows to Northampton), not seen any on the Trent Valley Fasts.

Looking at the VT departures at the time of typing, there is a big gap between the 1643 EUS-BHM and the 1657 EUS-GLC, the others seem to be 3, 4 or 7 minutes apart.

 

[Ricardo]

I seem to recall that the DfT estimated (in an IEP tender document or study document) that a non-tilt electric IEP unit would/ should only lose two minutes compared to a tilting train on the WCML between London and (perhaps) Birmingham, which would suggest that running non-tilt trains on the fast lines shouldnt be too much of an issue.

And, if that non-tilt unit could accelerate away from stations and out of speed restrictions in the manner a 395 can (bearing in mind the 395 would probably outperform any of the IEP variants), I dont see lack of tilt being a problem really.

Another thought: has anyone ever studied the difference in overall costs of running tilting stock, versus running non-tilt stock on track with greater amounts of superelevation?

 

[rail-britain]

I agree that there is little benfit to the tilt on the Class 390 on some routes :
Euston - Birmingham
Euston - Manchester

There is some benefit on Liverpool, due to Stafford

Equally, the same would apply on parts of the ECML
Kings Cross - Leeds
Kings Cross - Newcastle

There is some benefit north of Newcastle

I personally prefer the operational flexibility of the Class 390
At least if some of the traction motors fail the train can still proceed
If the engine fails on a 225 then it is stranded

Therefore, these types of train make sense...
However mixing tilt and non-tilt versions means restricting trains in the event of replacement due to failure in service
None was so more obvious with the Voyagers, which really should all have been tilt

 

[87015]

How is a traction motor failure on a 390 equal to a "engine failure" on a loco? If a TM fails, it'll self isolate on modern locos so you don't even need to stop, exactly the same as a Pendo I presume.

 

[rail-britain]

How is a traction motor failure on a 390 equal to a "engine failure" on a loco? If a TM fails, it'll self isolate on modern locos so you don't even need to stop, exactly the same as a Pendo I presum

There are numerous things that can lead to traction motor failure
At least in a Class 390 the train can continue in the majority of failures that lead to a loss of traction
In a loco the ultimate outcome is simply a complete loss
I'd much rather continue at 30mph to the next main station than be left stranded awaiting a rescue loco

 

[Aictos]

There are numerous things that can lead to traction motor failure
At least in a Class 390 the train can continue in the majority of failures that lead to a loss of traction
In a loco the ultimate outcome is simply a complete loss
I'd much rather continue at 30mph to the next main station than be left stranded awaiting a rescue loco

I know how you felt, being stuck on a failed 91 set with no air con is not the best of places to be and it wasn't even yet mid day.
So for all the small comings of the MUs, I do prefer them for that reason.

No matter how attractive any loco is!

 

[The Planner]

I seem to recall that the DfT estimated (in an IEP tender document or study document) that a non-tilt electric IEP unit would/ should only lose two minutes compared to a tilting train on the WCML between London and (perhaps) Birmingham, which would suggest that running non-tilt trains on the fast lines shouldnt be too much of an issue.

Which is amusing when the Dft spec journey times and it all goes off if the franchisee doesnt meet them. Believe me, those 2 minutes can make a difference.

And, if that non-tilt unit could accelerate away from stations and out of speed restrictions in the manner a 395 can (bearing in mind the 395 would probably outperform any of the IEP variants), I dont see lack of tilt being a problem really.

On the WCML the non-tilt speed profile is flat as a pancake at 110mph North of Willesden, apart from short sections at the Berko curves, Linslade Tunnels and Weedon. Unless you stopped at Watford, Milton Keynes and Rugby, the tilts would still out run you on an EBW, they probably still would even with those stops.