Alternative to IEP Program

[starrymarkb]

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.

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 ---

Maybe, but you'd be committing to a 40 year lifespan in either case. What would you replace the HSTs on the GWML with if you don't wire it? 22x derivatives and look at wiring in 2050?

The MML fleet is much younger being mostly 22x plus isn't one of the HS2 forks going to head for Derby/Nottingham and Sheffield eventually?

 

[WatcherZero]

Personally I think any hybrid should have its diesel power units modular and easily removable to increase performance (if a diesel power unit still needs to be run under the wires to provide additional power to carry the PU's weight around as is rumoured then removing that dead weight reduces the required power, lessens track wear and reduces maintenence), then as electrification occurs you could simply remove them from some stock that will never use them, keep them inside some other stock for operational redudancy and when you get to the stage 5-10 years down the line when some are starting to be removed you have spares for the units still in service! As a modular system would only require a couple of days in the shop to add or remove the PU's though specialist lifting and maintenence facilities may be required.

 

[tbtc]

Maybe, but you'd be committing to a 40 year lifespan in either case. What would you replace the HSTs on the GWML with if you don't wire it? 22x derivatives and look at wiring in 2050?

The MML fleet is much younger being mostly 22x plus isn't one of the HS2 forks going to head for Derby/Nottingham and Sheffield eventually?

Wire the MML and you free up thirteen HST sets and twenty seven 222s (might as well get new EMUs for the MML). Wire a few short sections like Crewe - Chester and Selby (Temple Hirst) - Hull and you free up a lot more 125mph capable DMUs.

Wire London - Reading - Oxford and all the Thames Valley branches (plus Basingstoke) and you save a few 165/166/HSTs. However the business case for further west is weaker, as there are a lot of branches (I posted a list of them on here last week, what with direct London services to Weston/ Carmarthen/ Paignton/ Newquay etc), you'd need to wire up a *lot* of lines to cover the FGW HST areas

HS2 is a long way off, and may not get further north than Birmingham in my lifetime

 

[starrymarkb]

Wire the MML and you free up thirteen HST sets and twenty seven 222s (might as well get new EMUs for the MML). Wire a few short sections like Crewe - Chester and Selby (Temple Hirst) - Hull and you free up a lot more 125mph capable DMUs.

Wire London - Reading - Oxford and all the Thames Valley branches (plus Basingstoke) and you save a few 165/166/HSTs. However the business case for further west is weaker, as there are a lot of branches (I posted a list of them on here last week, what with direct London services to Weston/ Carmarthen/ Paignton/ Newquay etc), you'd need to wire up a *lot* of lines to cover the FGW HST areas

HS2 is a long way off, and may not get further north than Birmingham in my lifetime

So are you saying you'd put the 22x on the GWML? Problem there is there arn't enough to replace the HSTs? Plus if you put the 221s from Chester, 222s from MML and 180s from hull that would be a very mixed fleet, and that's before you start doubling up to match the capacity of an HST.

So you are either looking at new build DMUs, 10 motored coaches would be an maintenance nightmare (though better then the DfT IEP proposal) or wiring...

 

[Zoe]

So you are either looking at new build DMUs, 10 motored coaches would be an maintenance nightmare (though better then the DfT IEP proposal) or wiring...

I can't see the wires ever going beyond Plymouth so unless you terminate all intercity servicies at Plymouth there will need to be DMUs.

 

[Nym]

Hence why a pair of generator coaches and a semi fixed EMU formation would be a good idea, or just stick with boring old LHCS, best for comfort, and when it's a long distance service, accelatation isn't the most important thing in the world, and if the coaches are built with a variaty of cabling passthroughs and DVT options, it could work with any new or old locomotive. For example, 66, 67, 92, 90, 91 etc etc, or a new build Traxx or Diesel loco.

Changing locomotives with autocouplers where the new loco is waiting in the platform and the old detaches at the back is a lot more simple than it is being made out, drop off old one, drive it into sidings, on the return trip, park it infront of the diagram again and couple up.

Wny is everyone so scared of LHCS? It's cheaper to develop a type of coaching stock, then buy locomotives for them. and the're infinatly flexable, can't happen on the WCML but 14 coach trains running from KX and StP anyone?

 

[Zoe]

Hence why a pair of generator coaches and a semi fixed EMU formation would be a good idea, or just stick with boring old LHCS, best for comfort, and when it's a long distance service, accelatation isn't the most important thing in the world, and if the coaches are built with a variaty of cabling passthroughs and DVT options, it could work with any new or old locomotive. For example, 66, 67, 92, 90, 91 etc etc, or a new build Traxx or Diesel loco.

Changing locomotives with autocouplers where the new loco is waiting in the platform and the old detaches at the back is a lot more simple than it is being made out, drop off old one, drive it into sidings, on the return trip, park it infront of the diagram again and couple up.

Wny is everyone so scared of LHCS? It's cheaper to develop a type of coaching stock, then buy locomotives for them. and the're infinatly flexable, can't happen on the WCML but 14 coach trains running from KX and StP anyone?

As I said above, we've had this debate quite a few times on here and it has been concluced that a DMU/EMU is always going to be superior. Sorry but we are not going to have a new build of loco hauled stock.

 

[tbtc]

So are you saying you'd put the 22x on the GWML? Problem there is there arn't enough to replace the HSTs? Plus if you put the 221s from Chester, 222s from MML and 180s from hull that would be a very mixed fleet, and that's before you start doubling up to match the capacity of an HST.

So you are either looking at new build DMUs, 10 motored coaches would be an maintenance nightmare (though better then the DfT IEP proposal) or wiring...

I think that there are five options:

1. Electrify everything on the GWML so that there are EMUs from London to Paignton/ Carmarthen/ Newquay/ Weston/ Penzance

2. Electrify the core GWML as far as Bristol/ Cardiff (and possibly Exeter/Plymouth/Swansea). Run diesels under the wire to give Paignton/ Carmarthen/ Newquay/ Weston/ Penzance a direct London service

3. Electrify the core GWML as far as Bristol/ Cardiff (and possibly Exeter/Plymouth/Swansea). IEP means Paignton/ Carmarthen/ Newquay/ Weston/ Penzance keep a direct London service by changing from electric mode to diesel mode part way through the journey

4. Electrify the core GWML as far as Bristol/ Cardiff (and possibly Exeter/Plymouth/Swansea). No direct trains from Paignton/ Carmarthen/ Newquay/ Weston/ Penzance to London (places like Middlesbrough/ Sunderland lost direct London trains when the ECML was wired, and these are bigger than Carmarthen )

5. Get some modern diesel stock for the GWML (and some additional HSTs) to manage a transition over the next decade or two. By doing what I suggested earlier (MML electrification, Crewe - Chester, Selby - Hull) you gain fifty 125mph DMUs which is almost enough to replace HSTs on a "one for one" basis (as well as thirteen EMT HSTs). Whilst there'd need to be some doubling-up of DMUs (for capacity) it would allow the HST requirement to drop down to half the existing need (or fewer) which should allow them to last longer). Some juggling of units between TOCs (maybe all the EMT 222/HSTs go to XC so that *all* Voyagers can move to FGW and give a common fleet?), but fifty 125mph DMUs could be freed up with much less electrification than is required for the GWML. You also gain a bundle of other DMUs with my electrification (e.g. electrifying between Sheffield and Doncaster/Wakefield would save some)

 

[MCR247]

Is it really hard to just order some off the shelf DEMUs, that have the pantograph well installed, ready for if they want to electrify it in future, add on an order to replace EMT HSTs, and order panto-coaches for MML 222s?!

 

[Zoe]

Is it really hard to just order some off the shelf DEMUs, that have the pantograph well installed, ready for if they want to electrify it in future

Isn't that effectively what the IEP will be, complete with pantograph already installed?

 

[MCR247]

Except it isn't off the shelf, so if any more sets are needed in the future, or lengthening, it just makes it awkward

 

[Nym]

No, Bombardier have the plans together for them, and the fact that the jigs have been cut up means nothing, they take a few days to weld some more together, immiterial to the cost of the order, for if say, Panto/transformer and generator coaches where order for all 22x sets, making them all 7, 8 or 9 carrages, and following on with some more built as electro-diesel units, similar to the 22x units, diferent bodyshels could be used on the same basic chassis. This would keep production in the UK, convert what would potentially become usless stock useful, if the stock isn't needed to go that fast off the wires, put in less generator coaches, or run less of them, as is already done on the 22x fleet. Most of the Voyager/Mediran tech is proven now so it will have less teathing problems, and passenger comfort could be improved if the units are 10 carrages long, but having large power units in the end cars with the driving cabs, or keeping passenger space by keeping it all under floor.

Yes, the diesels would need warming up for 20mins before loosing the wires, so it's best suited for the current likes of the ECML Branches, WCML Branches etc, and if the GWML was wired up to Bristol and Bristol Parkway, but it would allow for infinate flexability

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm sorry, but all this discussion about rolling stock misses the most important point. The only real alternative to IEP is a large-scale electrification programme.

The only reason why the UK has had to go down the route of looking at IEP is because our rail electrification is pitiful in terms of the route miles covered. At the very least we should have had the main intercity routes wired by now together with a good proportion of the cross-country network, just as our European neighbours have done. It's only because this country has abjectly failed to achieve this and now requires to look at replacing an ageing diesel-electric high speed fleet that we have to even consider the awful, expensive bi-modal mess that IEP represents. No other country requires a train to meet this specification, only the UK.

If we had electrified our rail network as we ought, we could have saved a packet on buying off-the-shelf technology. Just as Siemens could produce a family of Desiro units for the UK they could similarly have built a down-rated version of the Velaro for the UK for use on intercity services. There would have been none of these half-breed Voyagers or half-arsed bi-mode trains.

O L Leigh

 

[WatcherZero]

I dont really buy that argument because even if the main line was electrified we would still be arguing over what kind of stock was required to serve the secondary branch lines. Should we have had more electrification by now? YES, can we do anything about it now? NO.

 

[O L Leigh]

Nonsense. Secondary and local lines would continue to be operated by stock similar to that currently in use. We can produce DMU's easily for these type of services, such as the Cl172.

Can we do anything about the fact we should have had more rail electrification by now? No. But we can start doing something to make up for it, preferably before all the HST's are suddenly declared life-expired. Fitting them with new engines has bought some extra time, so lets start getting the wires up now and order up some decent electric alternatives using an adaptation of something off-the-shelf rather than wasting money on an expensive diesel or bi-mode train.

O L Leigh

 

[Invincibles]

Electrification should be undertaken on all of the major network lines

GWML, MML and appropriate Cross Country infills.

However, I think we would also have to accept the end of long distance service to Aberdeen, Inverness, Holyhead, Penzance and a few others as being an inevitable. Maybe they could come back when there was more money for electrification in the future.

It is the reluctance to downgrade services at the margins that makes the IEP type project appealing IMO

 

[jopsuk]

Of course, we have an issue with "off the shelf" in that anything designed for anywhere that isn't here has to be repackaged to fit our structures.

 

[Nym]

Yes, but thats less hassle than a whole new system like the IEP.

Desiro UK is very heavily based on the Desiro EU, and there already is a basic design for what would work nicely as an 'IEP type design'..

 

[jopsuk]

Of course, for the electric "commuter" stock version there's the off-the-shelf option of the 395.

 

[MCR247]

And for the electric intercity EMU there is the off the shelf 390

 

[junglejames]

As I said above, we've had this debate quite a few times on here and it has been concluced that a DMU/EMU is always going to be superior. Sorry but we are not going to have a new build of loco hauled stock.

Sorry Zoe. As ive said, DMUs/ EMUs are not always better. Certainly with DMUs there are many occasions when DMUs are not better.
Long distance Intercity services are no good for DMUs.
First there is the comfort factor (OK admittedly our privatised operators dont care about passenger comfort), and secondly there is the issue of efficiency (something even you have brought up before). 8/9 small engines are going to use more fuel than 1 (or 2 in the case of the HSTs) large engine(s), plus all other running costs are going to be more.

I know we are not going to get loco hauled services, with me there is no doubt that the best answer is a newbuild HST (quiet, spacious, and an all round much better option) but we are not going to get that. We are unfortunately going to get complicated Japanese stuff.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And for the electric intercity EMU there is the off the shelf 390

Everyone saying we can base trains on the Voyagers and Pendos. Why? Are we going to allow tilt on all these lines? If not, then there is no point in using bodies designed for tilt. Unless you can manage to make them as spacious as the Mk4. Something they havent done with the Pendos or Voyagers.

 

[Hairy Bear]

Sorry Zoe. As ive said, DMUs/ EMUs are not always better. Certainly with DMUs there are many occasions when DMUs are not better.
Long distance Intercity services are no good for DMUs.
First there is the comfort factor (OK admittedly our privatised operators dont care about passenger comfort), and secondly there is the issue of efficiency (something even you have brought up before). 8/9 small engines are going to use more fuel than 1 (or 2 in the case of the HSTs) large engine(s), plus all other running costs are going to be more.

I know we are not going to get loco hauled services, with me there is no doubt that the best answer is a newbuild HST (quiet, spacious, and an all round much better option) but we are not going to get that. We are unfortunately going to get complicated Japanese stuff.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Everyone saying we can base trains on the Voyagers and Pendos. Why? Are we going to allow tilt on all these lines? If not, then there is no point in using bodies designed for tilt. Unless you can manage to make them as spacious as the Mk4. Something they havent done with the Pendos or Voyagers.

Our 7 car meridians do use more fuel than a HST on the same diagram. Plus the train can be heated and battery charged whilst it lays over.
As for the mk4 's having more interior room, don't forget they were built to tilting profile !!.

 

[tbtc]

Long distance Intercity services are no good for DMUs. First there is the comfort factor

Earlier in the thread I replied this to one of your comments:

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...

Again, you say that DMUs aren't as comfortable as loco hauled, but fail to explain why. You can get poor seats/ bad legroom in any type of train. The "DMU = Bad, Loco Hauled = Good" stuff is a dead end argument

 

[asylumxl]

Again, you say that DMUs aren't as comfortable as loco hauled, but fail to explain why. You can get poor seats/ bad legroom in any type of train. The "DMU = Bad, Loco Hauled = Good" stuff is a dead end argument

It's unfortunate that a large percentage of rail enthusiasts are infact brain-dead with regard to the operational and engineering advantages of MUs, and are completely closed-minded when it comes to any new stock.

They also seem to have this weird belief that their opinions reflect that of the general passenger.

I'll never understand...

 

[TomJ93]

I do find the vibration irritating on some D(E)MUS but it's not bad on EMUS, even at full power, once a 221 gets up to speed it's fine.

^asylumxl I was going to agree with you until I spotted in your sig "Crush the Pretendolino!"

You can now consider me your sworn enemy!

 

[asylumxl]

I do find the vibration irritating on some D(E)MUS but it's not bad on EMUS, even at full power, once a 221 gets up to speed it's fine.

^asylumxl I was going to agree with you until I spotted in your sig "Crush the Pretendolino!"

You can now consider me your sworn enemy!

I'm so afraid that I'm going to go now and hire some private security :-x

 

[tbtc]

It's unfortunate that a large percentage of rail enthusiasts are infact brain-dead with regard to the operational and engineering advantages of MUs, and are completely closed-minded when it comes to any new stock.

They also seem to have this weird belief that their opinions reflect that of the general passenger.

I'll never understand...

Yeah, its a shame some enthusiasts can't appreciate progress and can't compare things fairly

There's good new stock and bad new stock, there's good old stock and bad old stock. No point in being biased...

 

[Daimler]

Again, you say that DMUs aren't as comfortable as loco hauled, but fail to explain why. You can get poor seats/ bad legroom in any type of train. The "DMU = Bad, Loco Hauled = Good" stuff is a dead end argument

I'd like to make it clear before replying to this that I have nothing whatsoever against EMUs - this isn't a locomotive-lover's bigoted argument. However, DMUs categorically offer a less pleasant travelling environment than coaching stock built to the same specification. This is because coaching stock does not have a whacking great noisy diesel engine underneath every carriage, droning away and sending vibrations up through the floor/seat squab. Every single DMU suffers from this problem to a greater or lesser extent, and I'm not sure there's a great deal that can be done about it.

For proper intercity services, then, I don't believe DMUs should be an option - the difference in refinement between a Voyager and a Mk3 trailer - a shift I experience on a journey I make twice a week - is considerable (providing, of course, the vestibule doors are working on the Mk3 - their biggest weakness, I've always thought!).

 

[mallard]

However, DMUs categorically offer a less pleasant travelling environment than coaching stock built to the same specification. This is because coaching stock does not have a whacking great noisy diesel engine underneath every carriage, droning away and sending vibrations up through the floor/seat squab. Every single DMU suffers from this problem to a greater or lesser extent, and I'm not sure there's a great deal that can be done about it.

As someone who travels regularly on Intercity DEMUs (Meridians), I find that the engine noise doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's no louder than the noise from a Cl43 when you are in either of the end carriages and low-pitched enough that it isn't annoying. I've also never heard any of the rattles that seem to plauge DHMUs on a Meridian (or Voyager for that matter).

Personally, I find that the "hiss" of a Mk3 or Mk4 carriage at speed is more annoying. I expect that most of the travelling public have little preference.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Some thoughts from someone who is going to have to operate whatever emerges from the IEP process:

Bi mode is needless complexity. Why cart a diesel engine about that isn't doing anything most of the time? The changeover process is just something extra to go wrong. The proposed diesel had less power than a HST, so its performance would have been problematic, esp in the highlands. The performance figures for the sets as a whole were just a fantasy exercise, if you allow for infrastructure and traffic level constraints. The whole spec just seemed to have been dreamed up to satisfy too many conflicting interests.

I'd suggest the following:

• Design a Mk V coach as a base vehicle
• Have a diesel loco + DVT or 2 diesels for non electrified destinations. Run diesel under wires, as with Inverness/ Aberdeen services now.
• Electric loco + DVT otherwise.
• 2 pipe air brake, with draw hook and buffers on the end vehicles. No more mechano set adapter couplings please!

Fixed formation loco hauled give you the same operational advantages as a MU, but you have far greater flexibility in the event of a defect to one vehicle. Onto the depot with it, knock the offending coach out, and the set is straight back in service. You can't do that with a modern MU. You loose the whole set, for the sake of one part of it. With this suggestion, the same base vehicle could be electric or diesel hauled, increasing options. There could also be scope for a high density seating version for some commuter routes.

Some lessons need to be learned from the past. The HST has been so successful, because it is very simple. Go back a couple of generations, and the Black 5 is the same.