East Coast IEPs Ordered - Class 800

[ModernRailways]

Life expired on the ECML, will that be the case? The main reason for IEP replacement is probably political, as we all know... Not that it's necessarily a bad thing though. We will need more electric locomotion for sure in the future. Though remember the 91s will need serious regearing - give them a new subclass!

I've never thought that the 91s would live their full life on the ECML. I thought the MK4s would stay but become hauled by a new locomotive, after a full refurbishment of the carriages.

I doubt the 91s would actually require regearing. They may do, but I wouldn't say they would need serious regearing. A new subclass wouldn't actually be such a bad idea. Especially if some were to move to the GEML or the MML.

DBS, typically with specially liveried locos.

Wasn't too sure, thanks! I'm sure I've seen a Freightliner loco on the front before though :P

 

[sprinterguy]

I doubt the 91s would actually require regearing. They may do, but I wouldn't say they would need serious regearing. A new subclass wouldn't actually be such a bad idea. Especially if some were to move to the GEML or the MML.

Anecdotal evidence in the past from East Coast drivers has suggested that the 91s can have some difficulty getting the current DVT+9 formations away from stations located on an uphill gradient - Sanders going like mad. And it is widely known that 91s have slower acceleration from a standing start (And within the typical speed range of a Freightliner train) than a class 90 or a 86, due to their high gearing: Class 91s don't have a particularly high tractive effort at low speeds compared to other AC electrics, which is what you need to shift a heavy Freightliner train.

 

[joeykins82]

I've never thought that the 91s would live their full life on the ECML. I thought the MK4s would stay but become hauled by a new locomotive, after a full refurbishment of the carriages.

With the exception of Chiltern who I'd say are a unique case* I think that loco-hauled passenger services in the UK are only going to reduce in number. Fast acceleration times are too important as the network runs at ever higher capacity.

* I imagine that if you offered Chiltern the choice of more locos and coaches or electrification and a load of AC 444-esque stock for their mainline services it'd be the latter that they'd go for

 

[Manchester77]

Chiltern don't have any of their services fully AC so you'd need a diesel to haul after the wires if there are any. D you mean a diesel version of the 444 model?

 

[ainsworth74]

Chiltern don't have any of their services fully AC so you'd need a diesel to haul after the wires if there are any. D you mean a diesel version of the 444 model?

No they meant given the choice between acquiring more LHCS and locomotives and fully electrifying their route and using a 444 type unit Chiltern would choose electrification and the units.

 

[joeykins82]

Sorry, wasn't 100% clear: Chiltern's expansion of loco-hauled services is presumably down to the superior comfort through reduced noise and vibration that loco+coach offers compared to DMU. Since electrification of the Chiltern route isn't on the cards for the forseeable future this is their only option for improving the ambience of their flagship services.

What I meant was that if Chiltern knew that electrification was happening "soon" then they'd cease investment in loco/coach stock and go EMU instead because the biggest passenger complaint about D(E)MU services is the noise and vibration of the engines.

 

[swt_passenger]

Sorry, wasn't 100% clear: Chiltern's expansion of loco-hauled services is presumably down to the superior comfort through reduced noise and vibration that loco+coach offers compared to DMU.

No, I think Chiltern are primarily using LHCS because it is all that happens to be available in the short term; and DfT policy is not to encourage or support further DMU orders.

If there were a whole load of Turbostars knocking about offlease, I reckon they'd use them, not LHCS...

 

[HSTEd]

Sorry, wasn't 100% clear: Chiltern's expansion of loco-hauled services is presumably down to the superior comfort through reduced noise and vibration that loco+coach offers compared to DMU. Since electrification of the Chiltern route isn't on the cards for the forseeable future this is their only option for improving the ambience of their flagship services.

No it isn't.
It is because there are no significant fleets of DMUs available in the short term.
The only stock available was the loco hauled formations.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Sorry, wasn't 100% clear: Chiltern's expansion of loco-hauled services is presumably down to the superior comfort through reduced noise and vibration that loco+coach offers compared to DMU. Since electrification of the Chiltern route isn't on the cards for the forseeable future this is their only option for improving the ambience of their flagship services.

What I meant was that if Chiltern knew that electrification was happening "soon" then they'd cease investment in loco/coach stock and go EMU instead because the biggest passenger complaint about D(E)MU services is the noise and vibration of the engines.

Perhaps you should change that to rail enthusiasts complaints. In all fairness most customers don't seem to notice, the lack of seats being far more of a concern.

 

[ainsworth74]

Have to say I agree with the honourable members above. If the choice had been between a fleet of dozen or so 3/4-car 170s and the current fleet of Mk3s and 68s then I would have been very surprised if they went for anything other than the 170s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No it isn't.
It is because there are no significant fleets of DMUs available in the short term.
The only stock available was the loco hauled formations.

The difference being that previously, operators were unwilling to go that extra mile to make the LHCS sets seem anything other than borrowed old trains that were only ever going to be short-term.

 

[The Ham]

The difference being that previously, operators were unwilling to go that extra mile to make the LHCS sets seem anything other than borrowed old trains that were only ever going to be short-term.

Mostly because there was the possibility of a further DMU order following on shortly. As it is the current plans are for no new DMU's until CP6.

 

[Goatboy]

Perhaps you should change that to rail enthusiasts complaints. In all fairness most customers don't seem to notice, the lack of seats being far more of a concern.

Noise and vibration *does* matter to customers, why do you think Boeing and Airbus put so much effort into making the newer generation of planes quieter inside than the ones they replace if passengers don't actually care?

 

[tbtc]

Perhaps you should change that to rail enthusiasts complaints. In all fairness most customers don't seem to notice, the lack of seats being far more of a concern.

Agreed.

I think that a lot of enthusiasts would like to believe that average passengers notice the type of traction and would like to believe that Chiltern chose 67s because loco-hauied is good, but I doubt most people really notice these things (and Chiltern took what was on offer at the time - just like you could argue that some TOCs ended up with new DMUs based on what production line was open at the time rather than designing a new unit from scratch).

Wishful thinking, in a lot of cases.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Noise and vibration *does* matter to customers, why do you think Boeing and Airbus put so much effort into making the newer generation of planes quieter inside than the ones they replace if passengers don't actually care?

Do you think that passengers really notice the traction (over the noise of announcements etc)?

In which case I'd expect you to be a bigger fan of nice quiet EMUs for passengers with sensitive ears?

 

[jimm]

It still strikes me as bewildering that Bombardier/Siemens and Alstom are touting their electric locomotives for a possible UK market when it looks like we don't need them. I also question the Vossloh proposal of an electric version of the 68!

Don't assume that such locos would necessarily be destined for passenger work. How much longer do you think Freightliner's 86s are going to keep going - coming up on their 50th birthdays now - and the Class 90s have never been a model of reliability by the standards of electric traction.

With the spread of electrification over the next few years there may very well be a market here for some modern, proven, high-availability electric locomotives, including in passenger roles with Mk4 stock if it gets a life-extension and the cost of doing the same with the 91s is not thought worthwhile.

The fundamental issue is building a bodyshell to fit the UK loading gauge, with the manufacturers having indicated in various magazine articles previously that fitting the traction kit from their current models into such a bodyshell does not pose insuperable problems, so it's really whether any of them sees enough of a market to justify the costs of designing a UK bodyshell and getting it into production.

The Bombardier (Traxx) and Siemens (Vectron and Eurosprinter) locos, which dominate the European market, are separate designs, not a joint effort.

 

[rebmcr]

Noise and vibration *does* matter to customers, why do you think Boeing and Airbus put so much effort into making the newer generation of planes quieter inside than the ones they replace if passengers don't actually care?

Because a turbofan is magnificently louder than a turbodiesel. It's absolutely incomparable.

I think for the layman, it blends in enough that if you asked whether they preferred the electric or the diesel, they'd reply with "I hadn't even thought about it". Especially when in an EMU or even LHCS, there are still a variety of compressor fans, air con, transformers, etc all whirring away.

 

[Goatboy]

I think for the layman, it blends in enough that if you asked whether they preferred the electric or the diesel, they'd reply with "I hadn't even thought about it".

I thought electrification was the second coming of the messiah and is going to revolutionise rail travel and really justify the inevitable fare hikes to pay for it? Now you suggest passengers don't care if the train is electric or diesel?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I thought electrification was the second coming of the messiah and is going to revolutionise rail travel and really justify the inevitable fare hikes to pay for it? Now you suggest passengers don't care if the train is electric or diesel?

He is talking about train ambience. Not better performance, reliability, longer trains, more frequent services which electrification usually brings.

 

[Pure BR]

How about LM having some 91/MK4s? They could use them in competition with Virgin on their longer distant services. Maybe develop some more as routes as well. Now that would give the bearded one something to think about!

If they stopped at, for example, Watford, Milton Keynes, Northampton etc, those cities would a much better intercity service (as Virgin don't serve those towns particularly well). And maybe prices will fall through competition? Just a thought

 

[corfield]

Noise and vibration *does* matter to customers, why do you think Boeing and Airbus put so much effort into making the newer generation of planes quieter inside than the ones they replace if passengers don't actually care?

How much effort did they actually put ? I'm an aerospace engineer and I doubt they would accept much of a weight penalty for noise rediction, and any improved quietness would have been a fall out of different structural and insulation design to deal with temp and pressure, both of which have huge operating cost implications for the operator (which is who A/B are actually targetting improvements at to reduce seat cost/mile/fuel consumption). I worked on a project to specifically improve passenger experience which died as that was all it did, at cost with no benefit.
Of course, Im sure any fall out benefits would have been spun as for the pax but in reality the only drive is cost competetivness. Hence on the A380 I was on at the weekend, there was no sky lounge/mall/cabins - just more and more seating.

I think Chiltern's investment a) piggybacked initial risk and cost done by WSMR so it was an easy business case, b) reflects their greater willingess to invest and look medium term, c) an expectation that medium-long term electrification and a clean slate would come and d) there really was no alternative bar buying new DMUs to which there has become a reluctance generally with the outlook for electrification becoming brighter. And of course their owner had a load of CL67 & Mk3s available they needed to be revenue earning.


They only have 5 sets of 5 coaches which is pretty niche compared to the GW / EC fleets, as with OAO I dont think they represent a trend or come up on the increasigly centralised stock decision making radar.

 

[joeykins82]

How about LM having some 91/MK4s? They could use them in competition with Virgin on their longer distant services. Maybe develop some more as routes as well. Now that would give the bearded one something to think about!

If they stopped at, for example, Watford, Milton Keynes, Northampton etc, those cities would a much better intercity service (as Virgin don't serve those towns particularly well). And maybe prices will fall through competition? Just a thought

91+Mk4 can't tilt so would run at lower speeds along much of the WCML, and would consume more path space with every stop because of the comparitively poor acceleration. If they were to be used on the WCML the one service that I can think of that might be suitable would be the mooted Euston-Northampton express. I suspect they'd cause more problems than they'd fix if they were introduced anywhere else on the WCML.

 

[Pure BR]

91+Mk4 can't tilt so would run at lower speeds along much of the WCML, and would consume more path space with every stop because of the comparitively poor acceleration. If they were to be used on the WCML the one service that I can think of that might be suitable would be the mooted Euston-Northampton express. I suspect they'd cause more problems than they'd fix if they were introduced anywhere else on the WCML.

True and maintenance would be a problem. Would be good to have something radical. Shake up Virgin and the trains would be miles more comfortable at longer distance travel then those Siemens trains

 

[AndyLandy]

To my mind, all the reasons cited against possible redeployments of the IC225s are exactly the same reasons why they're being replaced with IEPs on the ECML.

What good is an IEP with decent acceleration if it's just going to get stuck behind an IC225?

There have been lots of speculations as to what might happen to the 91s and Mk4s. XC, MML, GW and GE could all find a use for locos, coaches or both. Maybe they form part of a wider cascade to free up some other stock. I doubt they'll be scrapped, but goodness knows where they'll end up.

As for the fabled 'Class 344' (the AC 444-alike), it's rather unsurprising to see the concept being bandied around quite a bit. It's a comfortable (if utilitarian) EMU design that has 23m vehicles, end doors with vestibules and 2+2 seating. The 444 tops out at 100mph, but if a 350 can reach 110mph, it's reasonable to assume an AC 444-alike could do the same.

The South East is littered with commuter trains with 20m vehicles, mid-doors and 3+2 seating. If you want a train like that, there are plenty of designs to choose from, but not if you want an Intercity-style layout. The 444s are so popular because the other IC MUs they're up against are Voyagers, Pendolinos and the new IEP. It's rather unsurprising that people are obsessed with them.

 

[rebmcr]

I thought electrification was the second coming of the messiah and is going to revolutionise rail travel and really justify the inevitable fare hikes to pay for it? Now you suggest passengers don't care if the train is electric or diesel?

I don't recall saying anything that enthusiastic! Do you have me confused with someone else or perhaps misinterpreted me?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How about LM having some 91/MK4s? They could use them in competition with Virgin on their longer distant services. Maybe develop some more as routes as well. Now that would give the bearded one something to think about!

If they stopped at, for example, Watford, Milton Keynes, Northampton etc, those cities would a much better intercity service (as Virgin don't serve those towns particularly well). And maybe prices will fall through competition? Just a thought

LM and Virgin are not supposed to be in competition.
They both have franchise patches and are supposed to stick to them.

Can you name the competitor to FGW out of Paddington?

 

[Zoe]

LM and Virgin are not supposed to be in competition.

Why accelerate London Midland Trent Valley services and offer cheap walk-up fares though? If there was to be no competition then shouldn't there be no benefit in not changing onto Virgin at Rugby or make the journey times on London Midland south of Rugby sufficiently slow that very few people would want to use it all the way from the Trent Valley to London.

 

[joeykins82]

There's a degree of demand-management led competition between LM & VT, certainly from MKC. Both TOCs offer an "us only" walk up fare with VT providing faster services but LM providing more frequent ones and a later return service from London. LM offer an LM only fare to virtually every station that could be served by VT & connections, Northampton being a notable exception.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's a level of incidental choice between the two operators at certain places, but LM's job is to serve local flows and not to run long-distance services.
Both operators want to optimise their revenue/cost but the idea of LM running IC225s to Birmingham is completely daft.
The DfT would not specify the franchises this way.
It was the DfT franchise timetable which said 3tph VT to Birmingham/Manchester and put LM in the Trent Valley serving London-Nuneaton/Lichfield etc.
In any case LM users in Worcester, Leamington and Shrewsbury might wonder why LM does not spend money on improving its existing franchise services rather than messing about duplicating VT services on the WCML.

 

[captainbigun]

I'm going to send an email off to Freightliner just to query it with them. I certainly recall being told by a Freightliner driver that they had the 91s lined up when their life expired on the East Coast Mainline as replacements for their 86s and potentially some of their Class 90s.

Freightliner will understandably laugh.

What do we know about 91? Geared for 140mph with a complex gearbox arrangement with a right angle drive and transmission via a reasonable length cardan. They also have massive wheels.

All of that does not equate to simple re-gearing and handling of large TE.

That doesn't factor in the massive cost of refurbishing the rest of the loco. Looking at well over £1m per loco. More cost effective to buy new, it will be more reliable, have the benefit of inverter drive and re-gen and will have a longer life.

Sorry, you are barking up a ridiculous tree. The FL driver would have been pulling your plonker.

 

[rebmcr]

More cost effective to buy new, it will be more reliable, have the benefit of inverter drive and re-gen and will have a longer life.

Not to mention AC traction. 91s were super-advanced but the were the last DC-motored, I believe.