Alternative to IEP Program

[Zoe]

And yes, MML electrification makes a lot more sense.

If only the MML hadn't recently been improved, then we most likely wouldn't be having this conversation. That's what decided it in favour of the GWML.

 

[Daimler]

If only the MML hadn't recently been improved, then we most likely wouldn't be having this conversation. That's what decided it in favour of the GWML.

Yup - which is, let's face it, a stupid argument (unsurprising from DafT...). It's not as though the GWML desperately needs electrification - it's necessary in the long term, but we should be doing the most useful 'bits' first.

 

[Zoe]

If Midland Mainline TOC hadn't overordered their 222s then many of the services would still be HST run and I think that may well have swayed things in favour of the MML. Unfortunately Midland Mainline wanted to run services to Leeds so they ordered the extra 22s for this. The SRA then decided not to allow Midland Mainline to run this service so they used the extra 222s to replace HSTs. As I say had they not overordered I doubt we'd be having this conversation now.

 

[MCR247]

If only the MML hadn't recently been improved, then we most likely wouldn't be having this conversation. That's what decided it in favour of the GWML.

I'd love to see what these improvements are? When was it?

 

[Zoe]

I'd love to see what these improvements are? When was it?

See above, new trains.

 

[tbtc]

If only the MML hadn't recently been improved, then we most likely wouldn't be having this conversation. That's what decided it in favour of the GWML.

How significantly has it been improved though? Its still quicker to go London - Leeds/York than London - Sheffield at some times of the day (despite Sheffield being a good bit closer to London). Plenty flat crossings still, plenty freight getting in the way, two track sections...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If Midland Mainline TOC hadn't overordered their 222s then many of the services would still be HST run and I think that may well have swayed things in favour of the MML. Unfortunately Midland Mainline wanted to run services to Leeds so they ordered the extra 22s for this. The SRA then decided not to allow Midland Mainline to run this service so they used the extra 222s to replace HSTs. As I say had they not overordered I doubt we'd be having this conversation now.

Most of the 222s were to replace 170s

I think that "fleet improvements" and "infrastructure improvements" are different things though

 

[Zoe]

Most of the 222s were to replace 170s

The 9 car sets were for the Leeds service that they were not allowed to run. It was due to this overorder that HSTs were replaced and so the need to electrify the MML was conidered to be less than the GWML

 

[tbtc]

Not quite. I see it more this way: the 67 (as you say, for the sake of argument) is waiting in the platform as the DVT 'pulls' the electric train in. The autocouplers on these new 67s/DVTs/91s mean that as it does so, it couples up to the 67 as it stops. Doors unlock for passengers to get on/off. As they're getting on/off, the 91 automatically uncouples from the rest of the train and the driver moves from the DVT to the 67. Doors close, train sets off. I have to say, I don't know why it would take any longer than a normal stop at a major station

Ah, okay, I'm unfamiliar with auto-couplers

However, whilst this solves things for westbound services (other than arguments about finding (platform?) space for the 67/91 and the additional movements needed to get the to/from the platform), what about east bound?

So far, the 67 is hauling the DVT and train from Cardiff to Swansea. At Swansea, what? It runs round? Another 67 turns up to haul the train back? (could get quite long in that case, given that the train would have a DVT and two engines, might be too long for some platforms/signals)...

...then the train gets (back) to Cardiff, with a 67 at the eastern end, the coaches behind it and the DVT bringing up the rear. Then you'll need to get the 67 to uncouple from the train at Cardiff, slope off somewhere, bring the 91 into the platform (slab end first) and couple up. Quite a time penalty, surely?

To be honest, your solution sounds quite neat going westbound, so I'm interested in how you'd deal with the western terminus and recoupling back when the train reaches the wires on the eastbound journey...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 9 car sets were for the Leeds service that they were not allowed to run. It was due to this overorder that HSTs were replaced and so the need to electrify the MML was conidered to be less than the GWML

There are twenty seven 222s.

MML ordered twenty three, seven of which were going to be nine coaches long, but the bulk of the order (sixteen units) were on a "one for one" replacement of the Turbostars IIRC

 

[Zoe]

MML ordered twenty three, seven of which were going to be nine coaches long, but the bulk of the order (sixteen units) were on a "one for one" replacement of the Turbostars IIRC

Correct but the fact is they did overorder and this resulted in HSTs getting replaced and so less need to electrify the MML.

 

[ainsworth74]

Ah, okay, I'm unfamiliar with auto-couplers

Have a look here for examples of auto-couplers (though we're using the wrong terminology according to that wiki article) used in the UK. They're just what MUs use to couple up to each other (and I suppose 57s to 390s/221s).

 

[Hydro]

To be honest, your solution sounds quite neat going westbound, so I'm interested in how you'd deal with the western terminus and recoupling back when the train reaches the wires on the eastbound journey...
IIRC

My idea was a modern take on the REP concept. The EMU starts at London. It travels to Bristol under the wires. On arrival, it arrives into a platform where a locomotive couples to the front (i.e. non-London end). The locomotive will be fitted with automatic couplers. The EMU is dragged to Cardiff or Swansea. Upon turn around, the EMU is then used as a push pull set. The EMU's own cabs become the DVT to control the loco. It goes back to Brizzle, sticks the pan up and drops off the loco. Thence back to London under it's own steam.

Neat idea, but not practical as far as the DfT is concerned, who appear to think that if there was to be a loco dragged option, then the locomotive cannot be ordered from abroad. Current locomotives are unsuitable for this method of working without extensive modifications. 67's would be a good baseline, but there are only 30 of them. A new batch of 67's with IEP control systems and automatic couplings would be ideal.

Of course, the best idea would be to wire the lot and buy a standard batch of Intercity EMU's to wholesale replace the HST fleet for that stretch, but that would just be silly now wouldn't it?

 

[Zoe]

Neat idea, but not practical as far as the DfT is concerned, who appear to think that if there was to be a loco dragged option, then the locomotive cannot be ordered from abroad.

I think it was more the case that Hitachi were not offering a locomotive that could be used on the GB network.

 

[starrymarkb]

Of course, the best idea would be to wire the lot and buy a standard batch of Intercity EMU's to wholesale replace the HST fleet for that stretch, but that would just be silly now wouldn't it?

That is the option the TOCs would prefer - they reckon the amount saved in initial cost and maintenance by using standard EMUs instead of the overly complex IEP would pay for wires to Swansea and make a good start on the MML/rest of the GW area

 

[ainsworth74]

I think it was more the case that Hitachi were not offering a locomotive that could be used on the GB network.

Then why not dump Hitachi and go for someone like Siemens who have loco designs that could be used (or modified) to use on the GB network as well as EMU's that could also be used on the network?

Seriously why have we tied ourselves so closely to Hitachi when the specification seems to have changed radically from what the IEP originally was? You know if it does go ahead I hope Siemens and Bombardier keep up a storm because to be honest I don't see how else we're going to be saved.

 

[Zoe]

Then why not dump Hitachi and go for someone like Siemens who have loco designs that could be used (or modified) to use on the GB network as well as EMU's that could also be used on the network?

How easy is it to get out of a deal once you've annouced the preferred bidder?

 

[tbtc]

Correct but the fact is they did overorder and this resulted in HSTs getting replaced and so less need to electrify the MML.

...but there's nothing forcing the 222s to stay on the MML. They could just as easily move to the GWML and some new EMUs be introduced for the (electrified) MML.

The MML is just as in need of upgraded infrastructure, its a lot slower than the GWML, its a better case for electrification.

As an example, the 90s on the WCML were a lot younger than the 86s on the GEML, but the WCML had the big upgrade and the "newer" stock was cascaded to the GEML.

Similarly the Glasgow - Falkirk - Edinburgh route has much more modern stock (170s) than most DMU routes. Having newer stock is never a reason not to electrify

 

[LE Greys]

Have a look here for examples of auto-couplers (though we're using the wrong terminology according to that wiki article) used in the UK. They're just what MUs use to couple up to each other (and I suppose 57s to 390s/221s).

Just added something to the talk page, please try to put it into the article.

 

[starrymarkb]

You know if it does go ahead I hope Siemens and Bombardier keep up a storm because to be honest I don't see how else we're going to be saved.

The Lawyers for Bombardier, Siemens and Alstom will be watching very closely

 

[tbtc]

My idea was a modern take on the REP concept. The EMU starts at London. It travels to Bristol under the wires. On arrival, it arrives into a platform where a locomotive couples to the front (i.e. non-London end). The locomotive will be fitted with automatic couplers. The EMU is dragged to Cardiff or Swansea. Upon turn around, the EMU is then used as a push pull set. The EMU's own cabs become the DVT to control the loco. It goes back to Brizzle, sticks the pan up and drops off the loco. Thence back to London under it's own steam

I can see how "67 hauling EMU" works, and the pros/cons of that. But Daimler's idea was for a "225 equivalent" with uncoupling of the "91", which intrigued me

Of course, the best idea would be to wire the lot and buy a standard batch of Intercity EMU's to wholesale replace the HST fleet for that stretch, but that would just be silly now wouldn't it?

Agreed, but there are something like two dozen "branches" of the GWML that get direct services to/from Paddington, not all are going to be worth electrifying (Newquay/ Fishguard etc). Something needs to be decided about these. Whether you wire to Cardiff/Bristol or to Swansea/Plymouth there will be some branches that are unwired. Chop them off? Run diesels all the way to London? IEP? We can't electrify *every* line with a Paddington service any time soon

 

[Daimler]

I can see how "67 hauling EMU" works, and the pros/cons of that. But Daimler's idea was for a "225 equivalent" with uncoupling of the "91", which intrigued me

Apologies, I wasn't as clear as I could have been - I envisaged a rake of coaches with a cab at each end, so no runrounds would be needed. Going east, the diesel would simply push the train into the changeover station where the lead cab would couple to a waiting electric as it comes to a stand, and the diesel would uncouple automatically - so the reverse of going west.

It's very similar to Hydro's REP Mk2 idea except that the electric power is contained in a locomotives - meaning no distributed power, of course, but equally no lugging around of 'dead' traction motors away from the wires.

 

[Zoe]

Apologies, I wasn't as clear as I could have been - I envisaged a rake of coaches with a cab at each end, so no runrounds would be needed. Going east, the diesel would simply push the train into the changeover station where the lead cab would couple to a waiting electric as it comes to a stand, and the diesel would uncouple automatically - so the reverse of going west.

This sounds too much like loco and stock.

 

[LE Greys]

<deleted, someone's said it>
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Apologies, I wasn't as clear as I could have been - I envisaged a rake of coaches with a cab at each end, so no runrounds would be needed. Going east, the diesel would simply push the train into the changeover station where the lead cab would couple to a waiting electric as it comes to a stand, and the diesel would uncouple automatically - so the reverse of going west.

It's very similar to Hydro's REP Mk2 idea except that the electric power is contained in a locomotives - meaning no distributed power, of course, but equally no lugging around of 'dead' traction motors away from the wires.

I do like the idea. Partly, the system with the 4-REP enabled them to shorten the train at Bournemouth, since they only really needed four coaches for the run to Weymouth. I'd be looking at both the EMU and loco solutions, depending on traffic requirements.

 

[Daimler]

This sounds too much like loco and stock.

That would be because it is. :roll:

Does that automatically make it a bad idea or something? I like the idea of not wasting energy lugging around idle traction packages. This is modern, efficient loco & stock, with high speed autocouplers and no wasted time.

 

[ainsworth74]

Just added something to the talk page, please try to put it into the article.

Why don't you do it? As long as you cite your source I doubt anyone will mind. One of Wikipeida's guidances is to be bold when editing

 

[Zoe]

Does that automatically make it a bad idea or something?

Yes, no-one wants loco hauled stock. Not the dft or the TOCs or Network Rail.

 

[LE Greys]

That would be because it is. :roll:

Does that automatically make it a bad idea or something? I like the idea of not wasting energy lugging around idle traction packages. This is modern, efficient loco & stock, with high speed autocouplers and no wasted time.

It also provides a good opportunity to change drivers/crews. At Waverley, for instance, the Scottish crew would be operating the diesel while the English crew would be in the electric (either one might be in a DVT at a certain time). Some adjustments to the timetable could enable the loco from an up Aberdeen train to run directly off that, wait a bit, then couple to a down train just coming in.

 

[Zoe]

Many locations don't have faclities for loco changes though these days and lack shunters. There would also be a time penalty with a loco change.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

You know what, I shall find out how much the fuel will weigh for you, and come back to this thread.

Diesel fuel is slightly lighter than water, water weighs 1kg per litre, therefore if you assume 1 tonne per 1000 litres you won't be far wrong. Don't forget you need to include the weight of the fuel tanks and pumps as well.

 

[asylumxl]

Diesel fuel is slightly lighter than water, water weighs 1kg per litre, therefore if you assume 1 tonne per 1000 litres you won't be far wrong. Don't forget you need to include the weight of the fuel tanks and pumps as well.

I found people saying it's about 0.85kg per litre. So, a total capacity the same as a Class 43 tank, that'd be just under 4 tonnes of fuel.

So even taking into account dead engines and fuel+tanks, it'd still be more than half the weight of a MK4 trailer.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I think you mean 4 tonnes of fuel? 4000kg?