East Coast IEPs Ordered - Class 800

[HSTEd]

So a fleet that is only half way through its life is likely to be scrapped. That is a huge waste isn't it. One thing I hate is seeing trains that we labelled as life expired working perfectly well in other countries. How much money do we have to waste before we use the assets we already have properly before spending huge domes of money on shiny new trains. And again no doubt in 20 years time the dft will be bored of these and consign them to the scrap heap for yet another shiny new train.

The Mark 4 production line closed in 1992, which means that in 2019 they are at-least 27 years old. That means it at best you have 13 reliable years of service left at the time the IEPs replace them.

And we don't own the assets, a private company does.
The cost of the rolling stock is no longer sunk, this is one of those really silly things that was brought about by privatisation.

 

[jimm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSTEd
You might be able to justify keeping ~15 sets for MML duties currently performed by HSTs and some of the higher demand/less strenuous 222 diagrams, but you won't fit much more of the fleet in there.

I doubt there is any demand for the sets on the GEML because of the likely-hood that they will transistion to multiple units some time soon (the line is just too short and too slow, that it hasn't transitioned before now is very odd).

Either way I reckon a significant number of locomotives will go abroad or scrapped, with some coaches likely retained to replace Mark 2s and older Mark 3s in various niche uses (the sleeper seating vehicles perhaps?).

But a large fleet operating front line intercity services?
Not a chance.

There's nothing odd about the GEML still using locos and coaches - they were available (86s and a/c Mk2s) to keep down the cost of the initial electrification, and the 90s and MK3s also had plenty of miles left in them when replaced by 390s on the WCML, so why buy what would have to be a fairly bespoke and small fleet of units for the route? It may not need a supertrain but you certainly wouldn't get away with putting Electrostars on Norwich services.

So a fleet that is only half way through its life is likely to be scrapped. That is a huge waste isn't it. One thing I hate is seeing trains that we labelled as life expired working perfectly well in other countries. How much money do we have to waste before we use the assets we already have properly before spending huge domes of money on shiny new trains. And again no doubt in 20 years time the dft will be bored of these and consign them to the scrap heap for yet another shiny new train.

If we follow the logic of your argument and keep lots of 30-year-old kit (which is how old most of the IC225 stock will be in 2019-20) running for another 30 years, then presumably we should just be getting round to scrapping the Mk1s and BR Standard steam locomotives now, never mind debating whether Mk3s or Mk4s should be life-extended - having notched up 30 years' use which, as far as I'm aware, is the typical life in front-rank service most stock is designed for - not 60 years.

And why are you so exercised about the Bulgarians and Hungarians using a few ex-BR electrics (if that's what you are referring to)? I'm assuming you are not referring to the Iranians taking the little-lamented Class 141s. Where would those electric locos have been put to use over here after the appearance of the 390s when we are still rather short of electrified railway by comparison with most other countries in Europe and when rather more youthful Class 90s were also looking for a new home?

And your grounds for saying the stock is "likely to be scrapped" are what? DfT and Eversholt haven't said anything about what might happen - no wonder when the trains are going to be staying put on the ECML for another seven years anyway. Presumably because they are going to wait to see what electrification may happen beyond 2019 and whether the IC225 stock may have a use elsewhere for a few more years as part of that.

 

[jon0844]

I'm sure the Mk4s will find somewhere else to go.

 

[Dave1987]

Quote:


There's nothing odd about the GEML still using locos and coaches - they were available (86s and a/c Mk2s) to keep down the cost of the initial electrification, and the 90s and MK3s also had plenty of miles left in them when replaced by 390s on the WCML, so why buy what would have to be a fairly bespoke and small fleet of units for the route? It may not need a supertrain but you certainly wouldn't get away with putting Electrostars on Norwich services.



If we follow the logic of your argument and keep lots of 30-year-old kit (which is how old most of the IC225 stock will be in 2019-20) running for another 30 years, then presumably we should just be getting round to scrapping the Mk1s and BR Standard steam locomotives now, never mind debating whether Mk3s or Mk4s should be life-extended - having notched up 30 years' use which, as far as I'm aware, is the typical life in front-rank service most stock is designed for - not 60 years.

And why are you so exercised about the Bulgarians and Hungarians using a few ex-BR electrics (if that's what you are referring to)? I'm assuming you are not referring to the Iranians taking the little-lamented Class 141s. Where would those electric locos have been put to use over here after the appearance of the 390s when we are still rather short of electrified railway by comparison with most other countries in Europe and when rather more youthful Class 90s were also looking for a new home?

And your grounds for saying the stock is "likely to be scrapped" are what? DfT and Eversholt haven't said anything about what might happen - no wonder when the trains are going to be staying put on the ECML for another seven years anyway. Presumably because they are going to wait to see what electrification may happen beyond 2019 and whether the IC225 stock may have a use elsewhere for a few more years as part of that.

My comments were in reference to what The Ham said. People are saying these trains will last 40 years plus. On the current record of wanting to get rid of trains when they are only 1/2 to 2/3 through their lives it would seem this is optimistic at best. Come 2030-2040 no doubt people will say they are past there best and it is much better to replace them for new. Why do we not use trains to their full life span? If they were falling to bits and getting very expensive to maintain I could understand it. We are simply not utilising our assets to their full life span and arguably wasting vast amounts of money in the process.

 

[tbtc]

On the current record of wanting to get rid of trains when they are only 1/2 to 2/3 through their lives

What current record?

Its 2013 and we are still using 1970s stock (HSTs, 313s, 507s 508s) and I'd bet that there's a reasonable chance that we will still be using most of those classes in the 2020s.

How many trains have been withdrawn half way through their lives? Virtually all of the stock withdrawn since privatisation has been slam door stock that were unsafe for modern regulations. What non-slam door stock has been withdrawn? A handful of 508s will be, but apart from that...

Why do we not use trains to their full life span

???

Look at this Forum and all of the threads complaining about "outdated" stock like Pacers - now there are complaints that we aren't sweating our assets far enough?

All based on the assumption that we are going to scrap the 225s? I'd love to see some evidence of them being scrapped (and not just some froth on here).

 

[Harbon 1]

If a smaller fleet is needed for say the MML, why not put another 91 in place of the DVT, surely two of the most powerful locomotives built for Britain (12,600hp in this formation) would be more than enough to keep up with units?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Look at this Forum and all of the threads complaining about "outdated" stock like Pacers - now there are complaints that we aren't sweating our assets far enough?

All based on the assumption that we are going to scrap the 225s? I'd love to see some evidence of them being scrapped (and not just some froth on here).

how many times have there been complaints about 225s on here? They're not exactly inadequate are they. They are by far the best electric intercity trainsets in the country. The pacers are a bad example because there were complaints about them when they were brand new. So much so that Scotland rejected them completely. The only complaints about the 225s was the ride quality of the Mk4s

 

[WatcherZero]

Might be fairly cheap to lease but the running costs would be horrendous.

Thats like twice the power of a 11 car Pendolino!

 

[starrymarkb]

What current record?

Its 2013 and we are still using 1970s stock (HSTs, 313s, 507s 508s) and I'd bet that there's a reasonable chance that we will still be using most of those classes in the 2020s.

How many trains have been withdrawn half way through their lives? Virtually all of the stock withdrawn since privatisation has been slam door stock that were unsafe for modern regulations. What non-slam door stock has been withdrawn? A handful of 508s will be, but apart from that...



???

Look at this Forum and all of the threads complaining about "outdated" stock like Pacers - now there are complaints that we aren't sweating our assets far enough?

All based on the assumption that we are going to scrap the 225s? I'd love to see some evidence of them being scrapped (and not just some froth on here).

It's a no win - and also look at all the calls on here for Voyagers to be scrapped immediately and replaced with HSTs and 47s+6

 

[Martin222002]

Saw that. All it tells me about are the peripheral bits, not the chunky and expensive parts

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

The truth of it, and no matter who spins what work will be done at the Newton Aycliffe, whether the bodies are built there or not, the electrical equipment, traction motors and transformers etc, will be built in Japan, in the same way that they traction motors and transformers for Bombardier's Electrostars come from a factory of theirs in Sweden.

On the matter of 225s for the MML, 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 plus ones for spare, maintenance and peak services would use the majority of the 225 fleet. However I would state that I think a TRAXX loco would be far better suited to the MML than a 91 would, and I do have the personal opinion that it would be preferable that the 222s were replaced by something older than them by over a decade.

I do think that using the 225s on an electrified Manchester to Bournemouth service is a good idea however, as it would allow the 220s and 221s to be concentrated on the other routes until they are all fully electrified, by which time both the 225s, 220s and 221s could be replaced with a dedicated electric fleet for the XC network.

 

[Tobbes]

I'm only a passenger, so...

Anyway, I'm from Suffolk and though I live and work in London, I use GEML pretty regularly, normally up to Ipswich. I like the Mark 3s, but I'd be delighted with Mark IVs / Class 91s for the run up to Ipswich.

I'm much less happy with a Desiro, and 321s with 3+2 is tight, bumpy and uncomfortable; not a premium product for the premium price that Great Anglia seems to charge!

Given the proposed works to increase capacity on GEML, is it too much to hope that something like Mark IVs running at 110mph could see a small acceleration in journeys to Ipswich / Norwich? If nothing else, the removal of stops between Stratford and Colchester would be great....

Tobbes

 

[Dave1987]

What current record?

Its 2013 and we are still using 1970s stock (HSTs, 313s, 507s 508s) and I'd bet that there's a reasonable chance that we will still be using most of those classes in the 2020s.

How many trains have been withdrawn half way through their lives? Virtually all of the stock withdrawn since privatisation has been slam door stock that were unsafe for modern regulations. What non-slam door stock has been withdrawn? A handful of 508s will be, but apart from that...



???

Look at this Forum and all of the threads complaining about "outdated" stock like Pacers - now there are complaints that we aren't sweating our assets far enough?

All based on the assumption that we are going to scrap the 225s? I'd love to see some evidence of them being scrapped (and not just some froth on here).

I take your point, it seems that the way it has been looked at the HSTs need replacing so why not replace the whole lot even if that means getting rid of perfectly good trains. I wonder if they will be better or worse than the current stock. Anyone have any thoughts on this from a passenger comfort point of view
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm only a passenger, so...

Anyway, I'm from Suffolk and though I live and work in London, I use GEML pretty regularly, normally up to Ipswich. I like the Mark 3s, but I'd be delighted with Mark IVs / Class 91s for the run up to Ipswich.

I'm much less happy with a Desiro, and 321s with 3+2 is tight, bumpy and uncomfortable; not a premium product for the premium price that Great Anglia seems to charge!

Given the proposed works to increase capacity on GEML, is it too much to hope that something like Mark IVs running at 110mph could see a small acceleration in journeys to Ipswich / Norwich? If nothing else, the removal of stops between Stratford and Colchester would be great....

Tobbes

Taking the Chelmsford stop out would cause uproar and it looks like it is inevitable that the Norwich route will go to multiple units rather than intercity trains. Again this will probably be very unpopular.

 

[Eagle]

The way I see it, London to Norwich is a similar sort of route to London to Bournemouth. About the same distance (110 miles), same frequency (2tph, not counting the very slow London to Poole stopper) and same number of stops. (Let's ignore for now that fast Bournemouth trains then continue to Weymouth.) There's no reason why Norwich should get intercity trains and Bournemouth shouldn't.

 

[route:oxford]

I think what some people have meant by splitting them up is removing the need for the 91/DVT and making the MK4 carriages into units. It could work but a high cost.

Why would it make it a high cost? You wouldn't need to do much with the Mk4s

Two DMSLs with one of the new fangled compact 950hp engines underneath each with 3/4 Mk4 trailers sandwiched between.

Just need to be electrically compatible, and have gangways that fit. A DVT is a pointless waste of space for 110mph running, as well as wasting 2/3rds of the space for 125mph running.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Been done already. Before the DVTs were complete, some ECML trains ran with 91 and 43 (HST power car) in top & tail mode - that is why some 43s were fitted with buffers. .

these are a HST rake minus a class 43 hauled by a CLass 91, the ETS was supplied by the 'surrogate DVT' Class 43 - and later during that period some traction was provided by the cl 43 because of problems with the Cl43 running at fast idle for hours at a time just to provide the ETS to the Mk3 stock.

HST mk 3 stock uses 3 phase 415v AC ETS not conventional ETS as used by mk 2, Loco hauled mk 3 ( hence the reason GC had to rewire their ex LH mk3s for their HST sets) and mk4 stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It should be noted that that although there are only 30 x 225's, there are other classes of trains where there are a similar number of sets. The best example would be the class 222's where there are only 27 sets amd the class 159's where there are 30 sers.

the 22* family however numbers a great many more ...

the 159 is a proforma difference from the 158 ...

the cl 91 and the Mk4 are not part of a wider family ...

[/QUOTE]

 

[Tobbes]

The way I see it, London to Norwich is a similar sort of route to London to Bournemouth. About the same distance (110 miles), same frequency (2tph, not counting the very slow London to Poole stopper) and same number of stops. (Let's ignore for now that fast Bournemouth trains then continue to Weymouth.) There's no reason why Norwich should get intercity trains and Bournemouth shouldn't.

Surely, Eagle, this simply means that Bomo should have intercity trains, too...

 

[transmanche]

So a fleet that is only half way through its life is likely to be scrapped.

No. The only person who seems to think that is you.

Even if they don't work together as 91 and MkIVs; you can bet someone will have a use for the carriages - and when the electric spine comes to fruition, one of the FOCs will want a few more electric locos.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely, Eagle, this simply means that Bomo should have intercity trains, too...

It does, in the form of 444s.

 

[Dave1987]

No. The only person who seems to think that is you.

Even if they don't work together as 91 and MkIVs; you can bet someone will have a use for the carriages - and when the electric spine comes to fruition, one of the FOCs will want a few more electric locos.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It does, in the form of 444s.

Er The Ham is the one who thinks there will be no use for them.....

I don't know what is going to happen but I hate to think of useful assets going to waste.

 

[ModernRailways]

Er The Ham is the one who thinks there will be no use for them.....

I don't know what is going to happen but I hate to think of useful assets going to waste.

You're the one who has been saying you don't want to see old stock going to waste and agreeing they would be scrapped.

If they are scrapped I will eat my shoe. Twice. Chiltern alone would find good use for them. There are also plenty of other TOCs.

I personally don't see the 91s staying with the MK4 carriages, but I can imagine the DVTs will stay and they will become diesel hauled. Possibly by TRAXX locomotives. I hope over time we see a lot more bi-mode stock as it allows for so much extra flexibility in terms of what services can be ran!

 

[transmanche]

Er The Ham is the one who thinks there will be no use for them.....

Did he day that? Are you confusing him with HSTEd who said:

Either way I reckon a significant number of locomotives will go abroad or scrapped, with some coaches likely retained to replace Mark 2s and older Mark 3s in various niche uses (the sleeper seating vehicles perhaps?).

So one person said that some of the locos may be exported and those for which no use can be found may be scrapped. And similarly, he suggests that uses can be found for the coaches.

Everyone else thinks that uses will be found for most if not all of the vehicles (including the prospect of export, freight us for the locos, use of the carriages by other TOCs (e.g. Chiltern) - heck even use by charter companies.

The only person who keeps banging on about how terrible it is that the whole lot will be scrapped is... you.

 

[RobShipway]

As I pointed out in my early post, there could be many uses for the 225 MK4 coaches, if they where to be replaced by IEP trains.

 

[Dave1987]

Did he day that? Are you confusing him with HSTEd who said:


So one person said that some of the locos may be exported and those for which no use can be found may be scrapped. And similarly, he suggests that uses can be found for the coaches.

Everyone else thinks that uses will be found for most if not all of the vehicles (including the prospect of export, freight us for the locos, use of the carriages by other TOCs (e.g. Chiltern) - heck even use by charter companies.

The only person who keeps banging on about how terrible it is that the whole lot will be scrapped is... you.

Sorry obviously I'm misreading or mis interpreting what people are saying

If uses weren't found for them and either the locos or the coaches were scrapped in perfect working order then it would be a huge waste. I will leave it at that.

 

[transmanche]

If uses weren't found for them and either the locos or the coaches were scrapped in perfect working order then it would be a huge waste. I will leave it at that.

And as many people have repeatedly pointed out, that will not happen.

 

[Haydn1971]

Talk about trolling !

 

[tbtc]

If uses weren't found for them and either the locos or the coaches were scrapped in perfect working order then it would be a huge waste

If uses weren't found for the Heathrow Connect 360s (post-Crossrail) or the FCC 377s (post-Thameslink) and they were scrapped in perfect working order then it would be a huge waste.

But that's about as unlikely as someone scrapping all of the Mk4s, so there's no point in me losing any sleep over it.

Phew.

 

[transmanche]

If uses weren't found for the Heathrow Connect 360s (post-Crossrail) or the FCC 377s (post-Thameslink) and they were scrapped in perfect working order then it would be a huge waste.

In fact I'm struggling to think of when there's been a large-scale scrapping of stock which has become surplus to requirements well before its 'expiry date'.

The only example I can think of is on LU, with the 1983 stock. But they were a bit rubbish and their door arrangement was really not fit for purpose - plus all stock on the Jubilee had to have similar performance profile in order to make the JLE work.

The similar D78 stock on the District line is going for similar reasons - although almost 35 years is not bad.

 

[tbtc]

In fact I'm struggling to think of when there's been a large-scale scrapping of stock which has become surplus to requirements well before its 'expiry date'.

The only example I can think of is on LU, with the 1983 stock. But they were a bit rubbish and their door arrangement was really not fit for purpose - plus all stock on the Jubilee had to have similar performance profile in order to make the JLE work.

The similar D78 stock on the District line is going for similar reasons - although almost 35 years is not bad.

The only reasonable example I can think of is the Class 58s - I remember them looking so *modern* in the early '80s (before the railfreight colours became "the norm" on freight trains), but they only lasted around twenty years.

That was generally because the game had changed so much (in terms of what freight requirements were) and the 66s were so much better - there was nothing you could really "cascade" a 58 onto.

However, with almost a thousand miles of electrification over the rest of the decade, including on 125mph lines, there's no way that you'd withdraw 225s - they're probably going to be in more demand in 2020 than they are today!

 

[WatcherZero]

Only thing that springs to my mind is the original DLR stock which wasnt scrapped, went abroad.

P86 was in service for just 4 years before being resold to Essen.
P89 stock with better fire proofing which was built to replace it was in service for 5 years before it too was resold to Essen.

They theyve been rebuilt twice but still in service.

 

[Failed Unit]

Even if the 225s don't go to another franchised operator, I am sure open access operators will snap them up. London - Hull for example could be electric by then.

 

[jon0844]

No ROSCO is going to let them rot, or be scrapped when they are still usable anywhere in the network.

 

[The Ham]

No ROSCO is going to let them rot, or be scrapped when they are still usable anywhere in the network.

Even if they are not perfect.

For example on the XC route from Manchester to Bournemouth, even with thier higher tack access charges and potentially slower acceleration, if the cost savings (lease costs and fuel) were large enough then XC would snap them up. Especially if it enabled them to run more seats on all their routes, making them a more profitable franchise.