Disposal Of IC225s

[Iskra]

However EMT are hardly going to keep a few units for just Summer services, as such it could well be that they become an all year service.

If that is the case then there could be a need for some 222s to stay on for a time and/or EMT could look at new direct services to other destinations.

There may not be need to access the depot at Leeds, however there could still be demand for services for stations between London and Leeds and Leeds that would otherwise would lose out. Something that at privatisation may have only had a flow of (say) 40 people on a service now which has a flow of 80 people on a service and so could justify keeping it, especially as it could even hit 120 people by the time HS2 opens. On its own that wouldn't be enough to justify a service, but combined with the London bound flows that could be enough to justify running it as a through service.

The question is what would be better a totally new fleet of 80x's or a new fleet of 125mph capable EMU's and retaining some 222s. I would guess that the latter would be cheaper, especially if there was doubt over the need for so many (non tilt) 125mph EMU's post 2032.

Yes, if any 222's are retained perhaps Lincoln could get its service to London improved? I'm not sure Scarborough needs a direct but circuitous service to London when it's faster via the ECML, but I welcome them as a relief for the beleaguered TPE and XC between York-Scarborough and Sheffield-York.

The timings of the current HST services to/from Leeds don't make them sensible options for intermediate stations. Whenever I've used them they seem to either be empty or have a lot of people travelling on Advances on them. Although, personally I do like having the choice of EMT from Leeds and Wakefield for a change of scenery compared to travelling down the ECML, but most normal people don't use them in that manner unless on cheap tickets.

New fleets seem to be the 'in-thing' though, so they may not go for the cheap option. I actually think the cheap option could be sensible in this case, as we could end up with a glut of electric trains being scrapped before they are life expired and it keeps the options open until we have a better idea of what the post HS2 landscape looks like.

 

[Mikey C]

Politically, with lots of marginal seats along the MML corridor, might a fleet of shiny new IEP trains be more of a vote winner, than "cast off" IC225s...
:roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

Politically, with lots of marginal seats along the MML corridor, might a fleet of shiny new IEP trains be more of a vote winner, than "cast off" IC225s...
:roll:

Most probably.

 

[glbotu]

Is it just me, or is this another case of a 1980's Inter City train which was designed with too narrow a purpose in mind (largely for cost reasons)?

Much like the Class 442 was perfect as a limited-stop express train for the South Western Main Line and had basically no other function, the IC225 was the remainder of the APT programme, removing tilt and in a more conventional (for IC trains) loco + coaches formation who's best and main service is limited stop expresses on the ECML, with the disadvantage that it's not diesel, so can't replace HSTs for 10 years after the latter is withdrawn.

Hell, the '80s threw out Pacers, who's only use should have been rural branch lines, what they ended up as was just silly. Only the MkIII multiple unit family can be seen as a real success in terms of train design (despite 3+2 seating) from that period of train building.

This thread keeps suggesting uses for bits here and there, but without at least re-gearing, the Class 91s just don't have much use, because everywhere else either has special requirements (tilt on the WCML), or new trains (IEP on the GWML), or is still diesel (the MML). By the time the MML is fully electrified (to Sheffield at least), the 91s will be even older, and probably less reliable.

I guess the MkIV stock has some life left in it, but again, short of suggesting endless loco-hauled solutions, which only TPE has taken the plunge with, and even then on brand new MkV stock, where is going to take a set of high speed, IC layout coaches? Currently, loco hauling them means Class 67, Class 68 or Class 88, all of which are 100mph locomotives (well, technically the 67 is a 125mph loco, but it'll take it about an hour just to get there). You can't be sending those up the East Coast, Midland, West Coast or Great Western mainline?

So what's left,

West of England? Needs to keep time on long single track sections and in the commuter environment from Basingstoke - London.

GEML? New trains already on order, probably with some half decent performance characteristics (given how many trains they want to squeeze into Liverpool Street), which will probably preclude LHCS operation.

The Southern Region just needs more and more passenger capacity with short dwell times, Wales might nick some, I guess, maybe? Northern Connect?

It's getting pretty tricky to justify. Maybe we might have to realise that the reason we like these trains so much, is because they're perfect for the job they were built for and that very reason is why they just aren't very good for anything else.

 

[tbtc]

Is it just me, or is this another case of a 1980's Inter City train which was designed with too narrow a purpose in mind (largely for cost reasons)?

Much like the Class 442 was perfect as a limited-stop express train for the South Western Main Line and had basically no other function, the IC225 was the remainder of the APT programme, removing tilt and in a more conventional (for IC trains) loco + coaches formation who's best and main service is limited stop expresses on the ECML, with the disadvantage that it's not diesel, so can't replace HSTs for 10 years after the latter is withdrawn.

Hell, the '80s threw out Pacers, who's only use should have been rural branch lines, what they ended up as was just silly. Only the MkIII multiple unit family can be seen as a real success in terms of train design (despite 3+2 seating) from that period of train building.

This thread keeps suggesting uses for bits here and there, but without at least re-gearing, the Class 91s just don't have much use, because everywhere else either has special requirements (tilt on the WCML), or new trains (IEP on the GWML), or is still diesel (the MML). By the time the MML is fully electrified (to Sheffield at least), the 91s will be even older, and probably less reliable.

I guess the MkIV stock has some life left in it, but again, short of suggesting endless loco-hauled solutions, which only TPE has taken the plunge with, and even then on brand new MkV stock, where is going to take a set of high speed, IC layout coaches? Currently, loco hauling them means Class 67, Class 68 or Class 88, all of which are 100mph locomotives (well, technically the 67 is a 125mph loco, but it'll take it about an hour just to get there). You can't be sending those up the East Coast, Midland, West Coast or Great Western mainline?

So what's left,

West of England? Needs to keep time on long single track sections and in the commuter environment from Basingstoke - London.

GEML? New trains already on order, probably with some half decent performance characteristics (given how many trains they want to squeeze into Liverpool Street), which will probably preclude LHCS operation.

The Southern Region just needs more and more passenger capacity with short dwell times, Wales might nick some, I guess, maybe? Northern Connect?

It's getting pretty tricky to justify. Maybe we might have to realise that the reason we like these trains so much, is because they're perfect for the job they were built for and that very reason is why they just aren't very good for anything else.

Agreed.

This should be seen as a good time for the railway, with hundreds of new carriages being built/ ordered, lines being upgraded to faster speeds - rather than a bad thing.

If we can build large fleets of new stock that are cheaper to run (lighter, lower track access charges, regenerative breaking etc) then let's do it and forget about what we inherited from BR.

There aren't going to be any/many services that require eight/ nine coaches to run at 100mph (but not 125mph).

There aren't going to be any/many services that require eight/ nine coaches that don't have large passenger churns (for which Mk4 doors are unsuited).

Mk4s would be fine on some routes that currently see doubled up 158s, but then how many of them are there (which won't be electrified soon) - plus there's the economics of running a locomotive with only three or four coaches behind it (plus a DVT?).

All I can think of is give the coaches to Chiltern to try to "rescue" their 168s (since the need for Turbostars is rather great). Beyond that, you are talking dribs and drabs (half a dozen coaches for the WAG Express etc).

 

[Bletchleyite]

They would work with diesel locomotives on the North Wales Coast, a low speed and chronically overcrowded pseudo IC route.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[The Ham]

The timings of the current HST services to/from Leeds don't make them sensible options for intermediate stations. Whenever I've used them they seem to either be empty or have a lot of people travelling on Advances on them. Although, personally I do like having the choice of EMT from Leeds and Wakefield for a change of scenery compared to travelling down the ECML, but most normal people don't use them in that manner unless on cheap tickets.

One of the problems with the HSTs is that there are a LOT of seats on them, so if it is a relatively quiet service with 150 people on it there would be something like 3 out of 4 seats empty, whilst a 5 coach 222 would have something like 60% of the seats occupied.

The point I was making with regards to intermediate stations isn't necessarily just between the intermediate stations north of Sheffield, but rather anyone travelling from anywhere along the line to those stations. As such someone from (say) Market Harborough to Leeds may find a quicker alternative route but may opt for the slower service as they don't need to change.

Could the other problem be that the Leeds services don't happen on a clockface timetable, and as such people may not be fully aware that they run. Run them more frequently (say every other hour) and you would probably see more people using them.

 

[randyrippley]

why not fit the IC225 / Mk4 fleet with the tilting bogies they were designed for and use them on the WCML along with the 91's? If used mainly north of Crewe, they would allow the Pendolinos to be concentrated on Euston-Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham routes without the IC225s getting in the way. The IC225 fleet would handle Manchester/Liverpool/Brum to Scotland, and maybe Glasgow-Euston (non-stop south of Crewe). That way the inferior IC225 acceleration would not be a problem.

 

[43096]

As far as I know the class 91's are currently undergoing work at Doncaster which is why a class 90 has been drafted in. In which case one can only conclude that even after all these years the class 91's are still suffering from reliability problems.

So you are assuming.

There's a maintenance backlog on the 91s that VTEC inherited from NatEx/DOR which VTEC are addressing, hence the Class 90 hire. That is different to being unreliable.

 

[D365]

So you are assuming.

It's not an unfair assumption, however.

 

[Hairy Bear]

Well you all keep banging on about using 225's on our route.A few slight problems with that.
mk4 are out of guage south of Wigston, the power to weight ratio is less so slower services.

If you want to run at 125 then the ra drops to 5 due to the weak underbridges, ruling out 91,67,68 or anything else you wish to glue either end of the mk4's.

But it doesn,t matter anyway as the go ahead has been given to extend the life of the HST'S anyway so you can debate about sending them elsewhere now.

If you think they won't send the Thames links out in front of us, we'll they do it day in day out as they have priority over us.

We brings me to today's competition. .........

On a 2hr Sheffield to Pancras service...how much time is spent travelling at 125 mph. .?

A.. 1 hour 41 min
B.. 1 hour 6 min
C.. 7.5 minx

Answer in next post.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Answer ........ C

Strange but true.

 

[Master29]

Is it just me, or is this another case of a 1980's Inter City train which was designed with too narrow a purpose in mind (largely for cost reasons)?

Much like the Class 442 was perfect as a limited-stop express train for the South Western Main Line and had basically no other function, the IC225 was the remainder of the APT programme, removing tilt and in a more conventional (for IC trains) loco + coaches formation who's best and main service is limited stop expresses on the ECML, with the disadvantage that it's not diesel, so can't replace HSTs for 10 years after the latter is withdrawn.

Hell, the '80s threw out Pacers, who's only use should have been rural branch lines, what they ended up as was just silly. Only the MkIII multiple unit family can be seen as a real success in terms of train design (despite 3+2 seating) from that period of train building.

This thread keeps suggesting uses for bits here and there, but without at least re-gearing, the Class 91s just don't have much use, because everywhere else either has special requirements (tilt on the WCML), or new trains (IEP on the GWML), or is still diesel (the MML). By the time the MML is fully electrified (to Sheffield at least), the 91s will be even older, and probably less reliable.

I guess the MkIV stock has some life left in it, but again, short of suggesting endless loco-hauled solutions, which only TPE has taken the plunge with, and even then on brand new MkV stock, where is going to take a set of high speed, IC layout coaches? Currently, loco hauling them means Class 67, Class 68 or Class 88, all of which are 100mph locomotives (well, technically the 67 is a 125mph loco, but it'll take it about an hour just to get there). You can't be sending those up the East Coast, Midland, West Coast or Great Western mainline?

So what's left,

West of England? Needs to keep time on long single track sections and in the commuter environment from Basingstoke - London.

GEML? New trains already on order, probably with some half decent performance characteristics (given how many trains they want to squeeze into Liverpool Street), which will probably preclude LHCS operation.

The Southern Region just needs more and more passenger capacity with short dwell times, Wales might nick some, I guess, maybe? Northern Connect?

It's getting pretty tricky to justify. Maybe we might have to realise that the reason we like these trains so much, is because they're perfect for the job they were built for and that very reason is why they just aren't very good for anything else.

Yet despite all this we still have mainly 20+years old stock on our major routes except Voyagers and Pendo`s but compared to a new HST circa 1976 they are hardly comparable. Why do we still think this era was a bad one for rolling stock when the majority from that era is still very much in use. The Jury is out on the class 800 group which do look good admittedly but they haven`t entered service yet so hardly a comparison. We may have a new era looming but as there is nothing yet to compare it with we all have to wait and see.

 

[E&W Lucas]

The 91s are still relatively modern and have a lot of life left in them

They were conceived about the same time as the Sinclair Spectrum!
Their mid - life rebuilds were about 15 years ago, so would suggest that some similar expenditure would be necessary for them to continue in service beyond the short term.

 

[najaB]

Is it just me, or is this another case of a 1980's Inter City train which was designed with too narrow a purpose in mind (largely for cost reasons)?

The saying "jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind. There's nothing wrong with designing to a spec as you end up with an optimised design at a lower cost. Why design in features that aren't going to be of any use 95% of the time?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

One thing they could do with doing with the Mk4s is to choose a couple of coaches at random which would be stripped right down to the body work to examine them for things like corrosion, body sagging, etc. Before we start to think about where they'll be going we need to know that they've actually got some more life left in them

 

[edwin_m]

HS2 will also have limited impact on intermediate centre to centre traffic on the MML between Leicester, Nottingham/Derby and Sheffield, though it will be of greater benefit for end-to-end travel between London and Sheffield, so again there is an opportunity to bolster frequencies at intermediate stations by introducing more calls in existing services.

I suggest it's more likely that MML will have more services in total, with a mix of fast and slow, rather than adding more stops to the existing number of services. This is because Leicester doesn't benefit from HS2, so needs a London service at least as good as today's. As discussed on another topic, Derby and Nottingham are still likely to need fast trains on the MML as these will give centre-to-centre times about as fast as on HS2 and without the hassle of a change of trains. Sheffield by contrast is likely to be served by slower trains to provide connections to intermediate stations, as HS2 provides the London service. There may also be semi-fasts that connect to Toton and maybe transfer there to HS2 to continue further north.

This could mean that there is scope for a small sub-fleet of trains for the London-Leicester-Nottingham/Derby fasts that doesn't need great acceleration, with the semi-fast workings being handled by a new and high-performance fleet, rather like VTEC proposes on the ECML. On the other hand St Pancras will still only have four platforms and having a uniform MML fleet will allow those to be used more efficiently.

 

[Clansman]

Is it just me, or is this another case of a 1980's Inter City train which was designed with too narrow a purpose in mind (largely for cost reasons)?

Much like the Class 442 was perfect as a limited-stop express train for the South Western Main Line and had basically no other function, the IC225 was the remainder of the APT programme, removing tilt and in a more conventional (for IC trains) loco + coaches formation who's best and main service is limited stop expresses on the ECML, with the disadvantage that it's not diesel, so can't replace HSTs for 10 years after the latter is withdrawn.

Hell, the '80s threw out Pacers, who's only use should have been rural branch lines, what they ended up as was just silly. Only the MkIII multiple unit family can be seen as a real success in terms of train design (despite 3+2 seating) from that period of train building.

This thread keeps suggesting uses for bits here and there, but without at least re-gearing, the Class 91s just don't have much use, because everywhere else either has special requirements (tilt on the WCML), or new trains (IEP on the GWML), or is still diesel (the MML). By the time the MML is fully electrified (to Sheffield at least), the 91s will be even older, and probably less reliable.

I guess the MkIV stock has some life left in it, but again, short of suggesting endless loco-hauled solutions, which only TPE has taken the plunge with, and even then on brand new MkV stock, where is going to take a set of high speed, IC layout coaches? Currently, loco hauling them means Class 67, Class 68 or Class 88, all of which are 100mph locomotives (well, technically the 67 is a 125mph loco, but it'll take it about an hour just to get there). You can't be sending those up the East Coast, Midland, West Coast or Great Western mainline?

So what's left,

West of England? Needs to keep time on long single track sections and in the commuter environment from Basingstoke - London.

GEML? New trains already on order, probably with some half decent performance characteristics (given how many trains they want to squeeze into Liverpool Street), which will probably preclude LHCS operation.

The Southern Region just needs more and more passenger capacity with short dwell times, Wales might nick some, I guess, maybe? Northern Connect?

It's getting pretty tricky to justify. Maybe we might have to realise that the reason we like these trains so much, is because they're perfect for the job they were built for and that very reason is why they just aren't very good for anything else.

Agreed. I think it's pretty clear that some of the stock in this country were built with limited flexibility for their purpose. In the case of the 91s, they're going for definite probably. I do agree that the Mk4s do have some time left on their side, but I can't see them as part of a regular revenue service. No credible TOCs at the mention for the moment; only Scotrail would really have stood out if the HSTs weren't already jumped at in conclusion to Abellio's franchise plans.

The only role I see the Mk4s playing in future is if DRS decide to take in some, and spit out the Mk2s/Mk3s(?) which would need more work, compared to the Mk4s, to make them "2020 proof". I've not done my research on DRS so it's only a matter of time before I'm corrected...

 

[D365]

One thing they could do with doing with the Mk4s is to choose a couple of coaches at random which would be stripped right down to the body work to examine them for things like corrosion, body sagging, etc.

I'm sure that Eversholt will be aware of the structural condition and remaining lifespan of their vehicles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it just me, or is this another case of a 1980's Inter City train which was designed with too narrow a purpose in mind (largely for cost reasons)?

What's wrong with that? The IC225s were expected to see out their working lives on the ECML, and that's what they have done.

 

[Darandio]

Is it just me, or is this another case of a 1980's Inter City train which was designed with too narrow a purpose in mind (largely for cost reasons)?

If you were typing this in 2000, then maybe yes. It's now 2016, so no.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

why not fit the IC225 / Mk4 fleet with the tilting bogies they were designed for and use them on the WCML along with the 91's?

Can I have a bottle of whatever you are on this evening please?

 

[fowler9]

Bit gutted no one really liked my Merseyrail fast service idea. Has anyone heard of the Airbus A340? I love them but loads of them are getting retired early because in the current business environment they don't make sense even though they have years left in them. The 91's and Mk 4's are nothing like as young as some of the A340's.

 

[yorksrob]

Is it just me, or is this another case of a 1980's Inter City train which was designed with too narrow a purpose in mind (largely for cost reasons)?

Much like the Class 442 was perfect as a limited-stop express train for the South Western Main Line and had basically no other function, the IC225 was the remainder of the APT programme, removing tilt and in a more conventional (for IC trains) loco + coaches formation who's best and main service is limited stop expresses on the ECML, with the disadvantage that it's not diesel, so can't replace HSTs for 10 years after the latter is withdrawn.

Hell, the '80s threw out Pacers, who's only use should have been rural branch lines, what they ended up as was just silly. Only the MkIII multiple unit family can be seen as a real success in terms of train design (despite 3+2 seating) from that period of train building.

This thread keeps suggesting uses for bits here and there, but without at least re-gearing, the Class 91s just don't have much use, because everywhere else either has special requirements (tilt on the WCML), or new trains (IEP on the GWML), or is still diesel (the MML). By the time the MML is fully electrified (to Sheffield at least), the 91s will be even older, and probably less reliable.

I guess the MkIV stock has some life left in it, but again, short of suggesting endless loco-hauled solutions, which only TPE has taken the plunge with, and even then on brand new MkV stock, where is going to take a set of high speed, IC layout coaches? Currently, loco hauling them means Class 67, Class 68 or Class 88, all of which are 100mph locomotives (well, technically the 67 is a 125mph loco, but it'll take it about an hour just to get there). You can't be sending those up the East Coast, Midland, West Coast or Great Western mainline?

So what's left,

West of England? Needs to keep time on long single track sections and in the commuter environment from Basingstoke - London.

GEML? New trains already on order, probably with some half decent performance characteristics (given how many trains they want to squeeze into Liverpool Street), which will probably preclude LHCS operation.

The Southern Region just needs more and more passenger capacity with short dwell times, Wales might nick some, I guess, maybe? Northern Connect?

It's getting pretty tricky to justify. Maybe we might have to realise that the reason we like these trains so much, is because they're perfect for the job they were built for and that very reason is why they just aren't very good for anything else.

That's all fine and dandy, but does Greater Anglia (to give an example) really need it's entire fleet changed ? Isn't it a bit of a frivolity to be displacing some of the stock on those routes which is really quite modern - and that's before you get beck to the various 15* classes that us in Northern land (for example) wouldn't dream of wanting rid of.

I'm not saying that new trains aren't necessary some of the time - just that there are other spending priorities on the railway, and much as the likes of TCBC might dismiss everything as "nostalgia", is it really wise to be splurging so much on new rolling stock when other improvements could be paid for.

 

[Mikey C]

I suggest it's more likely that MML will have more services in total, with a mix of fast and slow, rather than adding more stops to the existing number of services. This is because Leicester doesn't benefit from HS2, so needs a London service at least as good as today's. As discussed on another topic, Derby and Nottingham are still likely to need fast trains on the MML as these will give centre-to-centre times about as fast as on HS2 and without the hassle of a change of trains. Sheffield by contrast is likely to be served by slower trains to provide connections to intermediate stations, as HS2 provides the London service. There may also be semi-fasts that connect to Toton and maybe transfer there to HS2 to continue further north.

This could mean that there is scope for a small sub-fleet of trains for the London-Leicester-Nottingham/Derby fasts that doesn't need great acceleration, with the semi-fast workings being handled by a new and high-performance fleet, rather like VTEC proposes on the ECML. On the other hand St Pancras will still only have four platforms and having a uniform MML fleet will allow those to be used more efficiently.

Leicester is only just over an hour out of London, that's London commuter distance surely? I can imagine a much more frequent service operated by express EMUs.

 

[tbtc]

That's all fine and dandy, but does Greater Anglia (to give an example) really need it's entire fleet changed ? Isn't it a bit of a frivolity to be displacing some of the stock on those routes which is really quite modern - and that's before you get beck to the various 15* classes that us in Northern land (for example) wouldn't dream of wanting rid of.

I'm not saying that new trains aren't necessary some of the time - just that there are other spending priorities on the railway, and much as the likes of TCBC might dismiss everything as "nostalgia", is it really wise to be splurging so much on new rolling stock when other improvements could be paid for.

Oka, I'll bite...

At the moment GA have got:

75mph 153s
75mph 156s
100mph 170s (two and three coach versions)

100mph 317s (four different subfleets)
100mph 321s (two subfleets)
100mph 360s
100mph 379s

110mph 90s

(plus whatever loco hauled services are currently in operation - I'm not up to speed with them)

If they want to replace them with two types of train then surely there are a lot of operational benefits - simplicity - maintenance - driver training etc.

Are those practical reasons, or frivolous ones?

The 156s and 170s will certainly have no shortage of TOCs wanting to take them on, the 379s will go to TOCs with similar Bombardier EMUs, the 321s are capable of running in three or four coach length, so more flexible than 319s.

Funny to have moved to a world where people are complaining about too many new trains being ordered, mind you...

Could the other problem be that the Leeds services don't happen on a clockface timetable, and as such people may not be fully aware that they run. Run them more frequently (say every other hour) and you would probably see more people using them.

The Leeds services are just placing journeys (three a day) to get HSTs from Neville Hill to Sheffield. They pass through Leeds station, so they might as well stop there. Early in the morning from Leeds, after the evening rush hour going north from Sheffield.

Good that the service runs as a through train, but you'd struggle for paths for any service during the daytime.

So you are assuming.

There's a maintenance backlog on the 91s that VTEC inherited from NatEx/DOR which VTEC are addressing, hence the Class 90 hire. That is different to being unreliable.

I'm amazed to see anyone allowed to criticise DOR on here! Nice to see Virgin clearing up the mess that they inherited though.

But it doesn,t matter anyway as the go ahead has been given to extend the life of the HST'S anyway so you can debate about sending them elsewhere now

Extended beyond 31 December 2019?

With or without significant modifications?

The saying "jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind. There's nothing wrong with designing to a spec as you end up with an optimised design at a lower cost. Why design in features that aren't going to be of any use 95% of the time?

Building stock for a particular job isn't necessarily a terrible idea - I don't expect to see the 345s or 700s cascaded onto other lines (though the inevitable threads in about 2035 should be really entertaining ).

But it doesn't take much to give units an element of "future proofing". AFAICS we've not built any pure-DC units since privatisation other than the micro fleet of 460s (?) - even trains intended to spend all of their lives on Third Rail are built with capability to be converted (e.g. 444s).

Look at the bus world, with ex-London bend-buses and provincial "FTR"s effectively junked after just a few years. We need to ensure that new trains are built to last longer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The FTRs were junk - a totally flawed concept - and the bendies were a political toy and should have stayed - I don't think that's quite the same as the railway - though I can indeed see the 22x being scrapped early as many of them are in a very poor condition already. The 80x is a far superior design.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Do we know this for certain, no... I'm challenging the assertion that it would be worse, we don't actually know this for sure. The wires would used the whole length by loco hauled Mk4s, capacity would be increased by the Mk4s, headline journey times would remain via the 222 fleet.

You would still have all the negative publicity of diesels running under the wires even though people have suffered disruption / noise during the night supposedly to replace those diesels. Surely you understand how the media operate in this country? In all fairness from my experience capacity isn't an issue on the MML. The fact that those Mk4s would be loco hauled would be irrelevant to the average passenger but you can guarantee that the media would go to town over second hand trains.

The Mk4s would simply resolve he Mk3 DDA issues instantly. There are currently 12x HST sets and 27x 222 units, the DfT plan to add 110mph EMUs on the Corby line, which would probably free up 4-5 Class 222s to strengthen current operations on the Nottingham/Sheffield routes, lets say that provides replacements for 2 HSTs, leaving a need for 10 Mk4 rakes to maintain current capacity.

EMT do run doubled up 222s, but in my experience, these are limited to a few services only in the morning and evening peaks.

Who's to say that those HST's will not receive the required modifications and then be moved on once the route is electrified? Don't forgot that the Norwich route has seen it's Mk3's modified to comply with the new standards and yet we now know that they are due to be replaced by new stock.

It's possible, but the economics look very weak - you wouldn't be able to use them until 2022 at the earliest, the HST sets would need extensive work to get them past 2020, then in 2026, there will be a huge recast of WCML services that will free up dozens of 9/11 car Class 390s and a handful of 221s, that still have a decade or more of useful live in them. Not only that, but the civil engineering works fit better too, you would struggle to fit 8 car EMUs in at the Sheffield terminus currently, so something has to be done there to allow them to be turned around, I've seen units sat in platforms 5, 6 & 8 for well over half an hour at times (not at the same time). That, coupled with NT plans to increase frequency and length of trains, plus TPE looking to run six car 185s through the day makes Sheffield look a lot busier.

What reason is there to suggest that you couldn't get 30 years use out of EMU's on the MML? Assuming that MML follow the lead that was taken on the Norwich all those HST's and Meridians will be gone by the mid 2020's and the EMU's start running. That can be no guarantee that a TOC would want those Pendolino's / IC225s once they are displaced; a precedent has now been set where TOC's are winning franchises and then ordering brand new fleets.

You are suggesting that it would be difficult to fit 8 car EMU's into Sheffield before returning south and yet you are suggesting that a full length IC225 wouldn't be a problem? Which begs the question; what's the difference?

Where has that been stated ? There will of course be a demand for Sheffield to Derby/Nottingham/Leicester services, but given we are talking a point roughly 16 years from now, following two major recasts of the mainline timetables, I'm having serious difficulties believing that will be the case. Growth on these intermediate routes will eventually bring passenger numbers up on the MML, which will work very well with the release of some 390s in 2026, more units once HS2 reaches Crewe and dozens of released AT300s past 2032 once HS2 reaches York and beyond.

It was mentioned in a PDF document which I saw on the internet some years a go, however I don't have the time to go looking for it. If you look at the issues surrounding Toton unless you live in the western Nottingham suburbs it makes no sense to use it. And I can't think of anyone traveling to the centre of either Nottingham or Derby wanting to travel to Toton because of the inconvenience. In terms of traveling from Derby to Toton the A52 is chronic in the mornings and it isn't going to get any better. The M1 is flowing freely at the moment in the East Midlands thanks to all the improvements but
give it another 15 years and it will have surely filled up again making it more difficult to access Toton.

All that this statement does is reinforce the reason why 125mph running isn't always possible on the MML, I've asked if there is any information on actual speeds of services along the MML, clearly some services will run at slightly different speeds depending on delay at stations, but all we have is a headline - yes, there's 125mph line in place - yeah great, but what's the actual speed of services.

You maybe familiar with the long running Practice & Performance series in Railway Magazine. A couple of years a go (and after the improvements had been largely completed on the MML) the magazine timed some runs between Sheffied and London. From what I recall the Meridians were being run at full line speed including 125 mph running from Cricklewood to north of Bedford. All this suggests that those EMU's are reaching their maximum speed much quicker than the EMT services and so are not holding them up. Indeed the same thing happens at the southern end of the ECML.

It's also worth noting that Network Rail are having to make costly modifications to the existing wires between London and Bedford in order to allow 125 mph running. The point I'm making is that they wouldn't be going to all of that expense unless sustained 125 mph running was possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's a huge leap in faith, what work is been done ? For all we know it could be routine work like you would service a car - doesn't indicate there's a problem, it's preventative to reduce the risk of future problems.

Whatever it is (and I honestly don't know) you've still got all the issues of having a loco out of service. However if it was simply routine work surely that would be done at Bounds Green?

There are 12 HST sets currently on MML, arguably, if you cascade the 4-5 222s from the Corby route once EMUs are deployed there, too maintain current levels you would need 10 Mk4 rakes. Given the timescales, there would be a need for a Diesel Loco to pull the Mk4s post 2020, as there will be no wires to Sheffield until 2022 at the very earliest, if not later.

Something similar to a Class 67 seem most likely, at £2-3m a unit, still much cheaper than a fleet of £2m per car EMUs even if you need 24 to top and tail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who want to buy a fleet of diesels which only have guaranteed work for five to six years with no real prospect of work after that? As opposed to an EMU which will give you 30 years of use. Given that we are told that a class 67 struggles to get to 125 mph that is not much of a solution. Someone has suggested that you could run a class 67 at either end but what modifications would you need to make to those Mk4s to allow it?

 

[The Ham]

The Leeds services are just placing journeys (three a day) to get HSTs from Neville Hill to Sheffield. They pass through Leeds station, so they might as well stop there. Early in the morning from Leeds, after the evening rush hour going north from Sheffield.

Good that the service runs as a through train, but you'd struggle for paths for any service during the daytime

Which is fine, if there are no posts then it'll not happen, however the main point of the post that started this was that there could be a case for new 125mph units for the MML as by the time HS2 opens, even with a full of 50% in passenger numbers then we'd still be looking at nearly 90% of the current numbers. As such buying new EMUs now wouldn't be a waste, as they wouldn't need to find a home post HS2 opening, as they would just carry on doing what they were brought to do.

The role of Leeds or other services could be to run services by some retained 222s was to allow them to be withdrawn after HS2 whilst providing extra capacity in the run up to HS2 opening.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Politically, with lots of marginal seats along the MML corridor, might a fleet of shiny new IEP trains be more of a vote winner, than "cast off" IC225s...
:roll:

Most probably.

Exactly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who want to buy a fleet of diesels which only have guaranteed work for five to six years with no real prospect of work after that? As opposed to an EMU which will give you 30 years of use. Given that we are told that a class 67 struggles to get to 125 mph that is not much of a solution. Someone has suggested that you could run a class 67 at either end but what modifications would you need to make to those Mk4s to allow it?

Bi modes are more likely. When fully electrified, either swap them out for more EMUs or just remove the engines.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Does AGA's London-Norwich route need any extra capacity?

No but they need updated stock lol

 

[D365]

No but they need updated stock lol

Which is happening.