East Coast IEPs Ordered - Class 800

[Haydn1971]

For example on the XC route from Manchester to Bournemouth

I've heard this mentioned a few times in this thread, is this a particularly busy line over say the Newcastle-Reading (plus extensions) routes ?

 

[corfield]

It does require a lot of electrification to happen before it's a viable plan. A shortened CL91+5-7 Mk4s may offer enough acceleration to be viable whilst giving a good wedge more seats than a Voyager.

I suspect at best they'll be split up, Mk4s to various niche LHCS operations, 91s to freight if doable. Otherwise I'd agree that scrapping isn't unlikely - this is a high end IC train, they dont tend to cascade well and Id see these as in a very similar position to the Class 55s.

 

[jon0844]

Look inside a MK4 and you would still be able to convince many people that it was a brand new train.

I think what will happen is a bit of a game. The ROSCO will command a high price, which might mean some companies refuse to pay - and then the negotiations will begin. The ROSCO knows there's probably multiple companies that would be interested in them. The companies will know that a ROSCO can't afford to have them rusting....

One way or another, they'll find a use elsewhere.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Don't you also need specialist servicing facilities for Class 91/Mk4 which do not exist away from ECML depots?
You can't just start running Manchester-Bournemouth with these sets.
Some capital investment and depot skills development will be needed.

Other little problems:
- the Solihull route is not being wired
- the DC-AC conversion beyond Basingstoke is not yet a "done deal".
A dual-voltage EMU solution is a safer bet in the short run.

A lot of decent off-lease Mk2s and Mk3s ended up in store after the last inter-city cascades.
Most of the Mk3s eventually found a home but they were not easy to lease.
Many useful Mk2s just rotted away at about 30 years old.
I don't think it is a given that the MK4s will be reused, even on obvious routes.
East Coast Open Access is the only obvious home, but that would only cover a small proportion of the fleet (and not with 91s).
Can a Class 67/Mk4 combination even deliver a 125mph service?

 

[jon0844]

How many could go to GA for services to Norwich, to live out their days before they're replaced with something new?

Obviously the Mk4s won't last as long as a new fleet, but they'll presumably give a bit of breathing space because we can't replace all the ageing stock with new trains overnight.

It would also save the need for any more refresh/upgrade work on the existing Mk3s, which can then be scrapped.

 

[The Ham]

How many could go to GA for services to Norwich, to live out their days before they're replaced with something new?

Obviously the Mk4s won't last as long as a new fleet, but they'll presumably give a bit of breathing space because we can't replace all the ageing stock with new trains overnight.

It would also save the need for any more refresh/upgrade work on the existing Mk3s, which can then be scrapped.

Careful, even suggesting scrapping Mark 3's can get you branded as a heretic by some!!!

 

[Tobbes]

In an election as tight as 2015 is likely to be, and, frankly, 2020 is likely to be too, headline improvements in areas with marginal seats will be increasingly common. Indeed, just look at the recent announcements and the constituency MPs:

- Maidenhead to LHR (£500m) (Theresa May, Maidenhead)
- Electric Spine to Sheffield (Nick Clegg,Sheffield Hallam)
- Northern Hub (Coalition in general, George Osborne, Tatton, in particular)
- Oxford (Marginal Tory/Lib Dem seats)
- Cotswold Line (D Cameron, Whitney)
- GOBLIN electrification (Boris / TfL)

Not that there's a conspiracy, but the prioritisation is interesting. East Anglia has some key marginal seats (Ipswich, Norwich) and throwing something out on GEML (rather than the £3.7bn proposed last summer) would be good - 91s / Mark IVs @ 110mph would work well (Presuming that a 91 / Mk IV rake accelerate at least as fast as 90 / Mk III?)

Toby

 

[Photohunter71]

Well,we can safely say that a UK Traxx is knocked on the head.

 

[captainbigun]

Presuming that a 91 / Mk IV rake accelerate at least as fast as 90 / Mk III?

Which it can't, nothing like.

91s are geared for 140mph. The GE at best will see some marginal raises to 110mph, even then you are unlikely to get full use of that whilst 321s are still wobbling about.

The 91s, as they are, are pretty tired. Even if they stayed they would require a heavy rebuild. Changing the gearing, because of the drive arrangement is difficult and expensive if not impossible. Lease on TRAXX vs a rebuilt 91 is likely to be close....TRAXX has a market across Europe, a rebuilt 91 doesn't.

You'll have gauge clearance work to do for the Mk4s. If, and it is a very big if, LHCS stays on the GE the likely outcome is rebuilt Mk3s and TRAXX.

I'd expect more IEPs to turn up....

 

[swt_passenger]

I think the electrified MML is the most probable destination, to replace both HSTs and Meridians. How do the numbers work out if both current MML/EMT long distance fleets are involved?

 

[captainbigun]

Mk4 plus TRAXX may work for MML, not the 91s as is, there are too many speed changes on the route, it would almost certainly result in journey time extensions over 222.

The problem is that for TRAXX you need a reasonably big order, like 50 units, to make the costs work out. This is why we have not seen a new AC loco for many years.

 

[Martin222002]

Which it can't, nothing like.

91s are geared for 140mph. The GE at best will see some marginal raises to 110mph, even then you are unlikely to get full use of that whilst 321s are still wobbling about.

The 91s, as they are, are pretty tired. Even if they stayed they would require a heavy rebuild. Changing the gearing, because of the drive arrangement is difficult and expensive if not impossible. Lease on TRAXX vs a rebuilt 91 is likely to be close....TRAXX has a market across Europe, a rebuilt 91 doesn't.

You'll have gauge clearance work to do for the Mk4s. If, and it is a very big if, LHCS stays on the GE the likely outcome is rebuilt Mk3s and TRAXX.

I'd expect more IEPs to turn up....

The same can be said for the MML, as it may be getting line speed upgrades to 125mph, but they are going to be nothing to the same length of streches that can be found on the ECML which the 91s in their current form need. Plus given that Eversholt, the owner of the 91s appeared to be more in favour of replacing them with TRAXX to work with the Mk4s on the ECML probably shows which option is the more likely outcome.

 

[The Ham]

I think the electrified MML is the most probable destination, to replace both HSTs and Meridians. How do the numbers work out if both current MML/EMT long distance fleets are involved?

If you are looking at numbers of sets, it doesn't work 30 IC225 vs 51 sets currently in use.

However if you compare number of coaches (remembering that the 222's don't really have full end coaches) you would be looking at 302 Mark 4's vs 251 coaches currently in service, which means that there would be plenty of coaches left to provide extra capacity. Although that may require extra locos and extra DVT's (unless there are a significant number of existing services running with doubled up 222's).

Also, IIRC, the electrification of the MML does not provide a fully electric network for all the EMT's IC services, so there may be just enough need for diesel stock to remain to cover the need for extra locos (although that could mean that there are a number of Mark 4's sat not doing anything, but possibly not quite enough to be of much use).

 

[jon0844]

Careful, even suggesting scrapping Mark 3's can get you branded as a heretic by some!!!

The refurbished ones are fine, but the ones on the GEML are pretty horrid.

 

[swt_passenger]

Also, IIRC, the electrification of the MML does not provide a fully electric network for all the EMT's IC services...

However as others have hinted at, there's a bit of a question mark over whether those services would continue in an electrified MML franchise, as they are basically only there to get HSTs back to their maintenance base at Leeds.

Without any HSTs those services might not exist...

 

[Martin222002]

If you are looking at numbers of sets, it doesn't work 30 IC225 vs 51 sets currently in use.

However if you compare number of coaches (remembering that the 222's don't really have full end coaches) you would be looking at 302 Mark 4's vs 251 coaches currently in service, which means that there would be plenty of coaches left to provide extra capacity. Although that may require extra locos and extra DVT's (unless there are a significant number of existing services running with doubled up 222's).

Also, IIRC, the electrification of the MML does not provide a fully electric network for all the EMT's IC services, so there may be just enough need for diesel stock to remain to cover the need for extra locos (although that could mean that there are a number of Mark 4's sat not doing anything, but possibly not quite enough to be of much use).

Well given that the slower stopper services that the 222s are currently used on are going to be replaced with outer suburban EMUs (something with a 379 style interior layout I would hope) once the wires have reached Corby and Leicester, for a half hourly fast/semi-fast service pattern to Nottingham and Sheffield would require in the region of 20-22 sets. Add to that a few spare/standby sets, sets in for maintenance, and any extra sets require for peak services, would use the majority of the 30 Mk4 sets.

As for routes not planned to be electrified as part of the MML scheme, I'm very sure the Nottingham-Chesterfield route was very high on Network Rails list of addons. As for Corby to Syston Junction via Melton Mowbray, Network Rail has stated that the case is very dependant on the demand for electric freight paths given.

 

[captainbigun]

As for Corby to Syston Junction via Melton Mowbray, Network Rail has stated that the case is very dependant on the demand for electric freight paths given.

This is the chicken and egg problem. FOCs are reluctant to invest in new AC traction unless the routes and paths are available to them.

 

[tbtc]

In an election as tight as 2015 is likely to be, and, frankly, 2020 is likely to be too, headline improvements in areas with marginal seats will be increasingly common. Indeed, just look at the recent announcements and the constituency MPs:

- Maidenhead to LHR (£500m) (Theresa May, Maidenhead)
- Electric Spine to Sheffield (Nick Clegg,Sheffield Hallam)
- Northern Hub (Coalition in general, George Osborne, Tatton, in particular)
- Oxford (Marginal Tory/Lib Dem seats)
- Cotswold Line (D Cameron, Whitney)
- GOBLIN electrification (Boris / TfL)

Not that there's a conspiracy, but the prioritisation is interesting

...in which case you'd have to include routes like Cardiff - Merthyr too (not really a Tory part of the country). Same goes for routes like Liverpool - Wigan - I'm happy that the electrification/ upgrades are generally being done on a "needs" basis (rather than to suit any political agendas).

I think the electrified MML is the most probable destination, to replace both HSTs and Meridians. How do the numbers work out if both current MML/EMT long distance fleets are involved?

Cut out the Corby services and the number of doubled up 222s (certainly not uncommon to see them on Sheffield services) and I think you could use thirty 225s to replace 27x222s and around a dozen HSTs (depending on how many East Coast are pinching!).

The HSTs are used fairly sparingly off-peak too. Maybe you could keep a handful on a box-ticker-express from Neville Hill to London via reversal at Nottingham (so that the unelectrified Alfreton route retains some direct service to London) if the numbers aren't perfect.

For me, the question would be whether the "inflexible" 225 lengths are going to cause any problems at smaller stations (Beeston, Long Eaton) - I think that Loughborough is always going to be an issue.

 

[edwin_m]

Cut out the Corby services and the number of doubled up 222s (certainly not uncommon to see them on Sheffield services) and I think you could use thirty 225s to replace 27x222s and around a dozen HSTs (depending on how many East Coast are pinching!).

The HSTs are used fairly sparingly off-peak too. Maybe you could keep a handful on a box-ticker-express from Neville Hill to London via reversal at Nottingham (so that the unelectrified Alfreton route retains some direct service to London) if the numbers aren't perfect.

For me, the question would be whether the "inflexible" 225 lengths are going to cause any problems at smaller stations (Beeston, Long Eaton) - I think that Loughborough is always going to be an issue.

For information, the HSTs work all the off-peak Nottingham services, which I reckon need about five sets in service. Several more work to London in the morning before spending the day at Cricklewood and returning in the evening peak.

Loughborough was lengthened at the north end last year so is no longer a short platform. Beeston could be lengthened quite easily, Long Eaton would be a bit more tricky, but a heavy refurbishment of the Mk4 sets could include adding SDO.

 

[4SRKT]

Looks like I need to find a new hobby in the next few years to replace my lifetime love of railways, now that the hammer is poised above the last couple of nails in the coffin of day-to-interest

 

[ainsworth74]

Don't you also need specialist servicing facilities for Class 91/Mk4 which do not exist away from ECML depots?

What specialist facilities? Obviously only ECML have the human knowledge but that's hardly a showstopper seeing as you might be able to pursade some people to move depot or just ensure that there is good training for staff at their new home. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the CET tanks require some specialist facilities but again hardly a showstopper

 

[swt_passenger]

... I think that Loughborough is always going to be an issue.

Didn't they spend big bucks on platform extensions there prior to the Olympics though? 250 metres or so?

 

[tbtc]

Loughborough was lengthened at the north end last year so is no longer a short platform

Didn't they spend big bucks on platform extensions there prior to the Olympics? though? 250 metres or so?

Apologies - I should look out of the window more often!

 

[Failed Unit]

Looking at the numbers and as others have said the IEP seems to be like for like replacement with no room for growth. (I know HS2 will remove some passengers off the ECML but that is 2026 if it happens at all - until the digger hits the ground I will remain cynical as the lobby against it seems very powerful - more powerful than if it was a motorway)

Anyway looking at some proposals on the ECML, I don't think they will work without more stock - not the same about. Will add these are just investigations all / none could take place.

Extend the Newark Stopper to Lincoln / York (probably the later) - but this is already factored into the Bi-Mode.

Extend the York Stopper to Newcastle (Would take an extra set if this was once every 2 hours)

Extend all 0030 services to Edinburgh

Have the following pattern on the Scottish services.

0000 London, Newcastle, Edinburgh (and beyond)
0030 London, Peterborough, Newark, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Alnmouth (not every hour), Berwick, Edinburgh
0050 London, Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster, York, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle (overtaken on route)

Various extentions of Leeds services including Harrogate and Bradford

What you don't really see much of is that beyond 2016 the existing ECML timetable will stay the same.

As for the mk4s, people have suggested London - Sheffield and Norwich. But other routes such as London - Cambridge may also be a possible destination - they did look at IEP after-all.

Again as others have stated - they won't rust, no-one expected the HSTs to get a 2nd lease of life but Grand Central for one would love a few more!

 

[The Ham]

Looking at the numbers and as others have said the IEP seems to be like for like replacement with no room for growth. (I know HS2 will remove some passengers off the ECML but that is 2026 if it happens at all - until the digger hits the ground I will remain cynical as the lobby against it seems very powerful - more powerful than if it was a motorway)

IEP will have 14% more seats in a 9 coach set than the current IC225's (627 seats vs at about 550*). Which does allow for some growth, but only about 5 years worth of 2.5% per year (the same growth rate which HS2 has been based upon).

Of course, there is still the possibility (if there are any spare paths) that a few IC225's could be retained to cater for some of the extra growth or a few more IEP's could be ordered for delivery after any future IEP orders for which ever TOC's would like them (XC, GW's west country services, etc.).

*if I've counted correctly.

 

[Failed Unit]

IEP will have 14% more seats in a 9 coach set than the current IC225's (627 seats vs at about 550*). Which does allow for some growth, but only about 5 years worth of 2.5% per year (the same growth rate which HS2 has been based upon).

Of course, there is still the possibility (if there are any spare paths) that a few IC225's could be retained to cater for some of the extra growth or a few more IEP's could be ordered for delivery after any future IEP orders for which ever TOC's would like them (XC, GW's west country services, etc.).

*if I've counted correctly.

I have heard people saying that some 91s + mk4s may remain on the ECML for that reason, mainly on the Leeds run. They are looking at getting a 6th regular path out of London on the latest RUS. But it is sets rather than seats I was refering to in my post above. Many proposals to improve ECML require more sets.

It is strange how people are already assuming the IEP will have a worse interior that the mk4s before even a proto-type is out. I will miss the mk4 - what I won't miss is the failed air-conditioning on warm days (it doesn't seem to happen as often on modern units as they have more redundancy). Other than that we get into that old MU -v- Loco hauled debate and the impact of a fault on one coach take the whole set out rather than the single coach.

 

[sprinterguy]

Looking at the numbers and as others have said the IEP seems to be like for like replacement with no room for growth.

I don't know about that, the total number of 9-car sets alone that are now being ordered for the East Coast is largely equivalent to the current fleet size, with 13 x 9-car Bi-mode trains to replace 14/15 HST sets (Working 13 diagrams - Obviously that doesn't quite work out as regards the IEP total) and 30 x 9-car Electric trains to replace 30 x 225 sets (To work 26 diagrams). That means that nearly all the 5-car IEP sets that are being ordered (22 trains or 110 carriages) can be considered as additional capacity.

 

[tbtc]

Looking at the numbers and as others have said the IEP seems to be like for like replacement with no room for growth

Hopefully IEP will have a production line that allows the first batch to be built for the GWML and ECML (HST replacement) then for a follow on order for the ECML (225 replacement) then for the GWML (bi-modes for Devon/Cornwall) then maybe it'd be possible to order some more for growth on the first tranches of routes, maybe ordering some all-electric ones to replace some of the first bi-mode ones (which can then be moved to XC) etc etc.

I'm certainly hoping that we'll be able to order more in the future to cope with demand.

As for the mk4s, people have suggested London - Sheffield and Norwich. But other routes such as London - Cambridge may also be a possible destination - they did look at IEP after-all

If you could resolve the Kings Lynn issue, Kings Cross - Cambridge would be great for 225s.

It is strange how people are already assuming the IEP will have a worse interior that the mk4s before even a proto-type is out

True!

I'm looking forward to the rose tinted spectacle brigade complaining that the seats on the IEP won't line up with windows and that there won't be 90% table seating etc etc (ignoring the fact that the same could be said of the 225s).

If it'll have more legroom, better facilities (e.g. if IEP is meant to last until 2050 then it'll need wifi/ plugs as standard), 15% more seats etc then I'm all for it.

 

[DarloRich]

Where will the depots be based for the IEP?

 

[captainbigun]

Hopefully IEP will have a production line that allows the first batch to be built for the GWML and ECML (HST replacement) then for a follow on order for the ECML (225 replacement) then for the GWML (bi-modes for Devon/Cornwall) then maybe it'd be possible to order some more for growth on the first tranches of routes, maybe ordering some all-electric ones to replace some of the first bi-mode ones (which can then be moved to XC) etc etc.

I'm certainly hoping that we'll be able to order more in the future to cope with demand.

That will depend how readily Hitachi can ship the parts from Japan....the plant in Newton Ayrcliffe is going to be akin to your front room after a trip to Ikea. I expect any follow on would have to be made sharpish.

If you could resolve the Kings Lynn issue, Kings Cross - Cambridge would be great for 225s.

I completely disagree. Dwell times would be horrendous, not to mention the lack of acceleration. Then there are the issues with the power supply, Hitchin to Cambridge and Cherry Hinton to Kings Lynn. Not going to happen!