Future MML rolling stock?

[Nym]

Corby like I said would be handed over to Thameslink in my world, and the whole MML would be completed, so no diesel stock or bi mode stock at all would be needed on the MML, and this diesel stock can then be sent where new diesel or bi mode is needed, namely the GWML, where there should be enough 222s and 221s (From ICWC with Crewe - Chester and Brum - Scotland moved over to 390 operation) to cover any shortfall due to not full wiring of the GWML, hence...

No new LDPE diesel stock will need to be ordered...

For covering Nottingham - Leeds you could either use something like a 350, that would come under the hat of Northern or EMT, or just extend the service from London to Leeds, using whatever the standard LDPE EMU is at the time.

VT have shown us the benifit of a uniform fleet, and I beleive that this is what the Midland Mainline mainline services off St Pancras could really benifit from, whatever comes in will then be sent off on the next service, and with homogenous stock, that is easy to implement, and makes it a lot easyer to cover delays.

Off wires services on the Midland Mainline would mean more LDPE diesel stock being ordered, and this is somthing that I just don't want to see, and isn't needed.

 

[Chris125]

If there was any sense, and so long as the traction package remains available, non-tilt 390's would seem ideal - below the solebar they've impressed greatly, so removing the tilt mechanism and giving it a conventional size body with new interior would give you a much cheaper alternative to the IEP, both to buy and run.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

Corby like I said would be handed over to Thameslink in my world

...and in my world too.

When I did the maths before, 27x 222s (amended to five/six coach length, rather than the four/ five/ seven that we currently have) would be roughly enough to work the "North" TPE routes (Liverpool/ Manchester Airport - Hull/ Scarborough/ Middlesbrough/ Newcastle).

I think that this would be an approproate place for them.

IEP seems a little ambitious for the MML, especially as there's now a need for services to stop at places like Kettering regularly - there are a lot of stops needed south of Leicester each hour (Luton Airport etc).

What I'd be looking for is an EMU with doors at the end, suitable for journeys of one-two hours - order the same stock for the GEML when the 90s are replaced too.

 

[Nym]

The only difference though tbtc is that I think that the 222 fleet would be better used on the GWML than TPE North, not that it wouldn't be appropriate to use for TPE north, I think it would, but there is a greater need to reduce both development costs of new stock, and reduce the bed of residual LDPE diesel stock for the next 20 or so years, if there is an agressive programme of continuing electrification, then any new Bi Mode LDPE stock is a silly idea, the 222 fleet and parts of the 221 fleet can cover the shortfall until more electrification is completed. In say, 20 years when wires could quite easily have reached Penzance, Holyhead, and every other far reach of the LDPE market. (LDPE = Long Distance Passenger Express).

TPE North should get some better stock than it has now, but if electrification is to continue at a reasonable pace, than this stock should be somthing like the 380 or Desiro City for Thameslink. The 185s are ideal for the TPE network (although more luggage space and a small shop would be nice additions), the're just not long enough. And this will be partly helped by handing over most of the TPE NW network to EMU operation, Leaving only Airport - Lakes in the hands of Diesel units, even this could be handed over to Northern along with some more (and appropriate) stock to run the services either off Airport or Victoria, and in combination with the Southport service (provided this remains diesel) splitting at Bolton.
ie. Transfer the turbostars with TPE over to Northern to run the Lakes -Lancaster - Manchester services, but then again, this would be a massive underprovision of stock for the route, so IMHO, it should stay, allong with the turbostars with TPE. Not forgetting aswell the asperation for 6tph across the Diggle Route, the turbostars would be idealy placed to run these new semi-fast services out of either Victoria or Piccadilly via Guide Bridge. Again, staying within TPE. "TPE Connect" if you like.

As for the MML, it all depends on what is happening with it, it should end up with similar stock to the GEML, but it again depends on what the rules end up saying for 110mph running with end gangways, and if HS2 is happening or not, and if this will run onto the MML, if HS2 is happening, and it will run onto the MML near Trent Junction for Nottingham and Derby then somthing like an AC 444 or even somthing like the 380s would be perfect for the route, as the lower end of the MML would be inter-reigonal rather than LDPE, and said stock would continue on the inter-reigonal services north of Derby and Nottingham where LDPE services would be provided by HS2's Classic Compatable stock upto Leeds, York and Newcastle.

 

[tbtc]

The only difference though tbtc is that I think that the 222 fleet would be better used on the GWML than TPE North

Fair enough, I was going on the theory that a five/six coach 222 would be a capacity increase for most TPE North services but wouldn't cope with the volumes used to GWML HSTs.

Unless of course you are sticking in a few extra coaches, but then it may be easier to build a brand new train for the GWML whilst giving TPE the 222s.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If there was any sense, and so long as the traction package remains available, non-tilt 390's would seem ideal - below the solebar they've impressed greatly, so removing the tilt mechanism and giving it a conventional size body with new interior would give you a much cheaper alternative to the IEP, both to buy and run.

Chris

I've always thought that the Midland needs tilting trains to get a full 125mph speed profile, just like the WCML. It's really a very curvy line compared to ECML/GWML.
Shouldn't we be developing a route spec based on tilt for the future?

Considering the success of tilt on the WCML I am surprised it does not figure more in strategic planning for routes with low max speeds (on trans-pennine routes for instance, or west of Exeter).

 

[Nym]

Fair enough, I was going on the theory that a five/six coach 222 would be a capacity increase for most TPE North services but wouldn't cope with the volumes used to GWML HSTs.

Unless of course you are sticking in a few extra coaches, but then it may be easier to build a brand new train for the GWML whilst giving TPE the 222s.

Ah yeah, it's burried in my numbers somwhere but the fleet would be lengthened by 2 cars per unit when electrodieselified, potentially even up to 3 extra cars per unit.

Eg, a 9 Car EDMU 222 would have 3 transformer coaches.
A 7 car would have 2 coaches etc. etc.

I would also look into 'downgrading' the Berks&Hants line to Inter-Reigonal, so that all mainline services would run (with linespeed improvments) via Bristol TM and Western Super Mare. The B&H Line would then be operated either by Turbos or Turbostars. (That I have no objection to ordering some more of, we'll always need inter-reigonal diesel stock, and it's showing massive growth on branches)

If the TPE N Network is electrified then this would be a reasonable home for the 185 fleet, or possibly with SWT operating them on the Exeter route, but thats far to in deep at the moment.

PS: I wouldn't ban LDPE runs on the B&H, simply discourage it and send most services via Bristol TM, reduce diesel under wires (as they'd run leccy) and limit high speed diesel sections of route with EDMUs as they naturally won't perform well over 100mph on diesel only)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've always thought that the Midland needs tilting trains to get a full 125mph speed profile, just like the WCML. It's really a very curvy line compared to ECML/GWML.
Shouldn't we be developing a route spec based on tilt for the future?

Considering the success of tilt on the WCML I am surprised it does not figure more in strategic planning for routes with low max speeds (on trans-pennine routes for instance, or west of Exeter).

Remember though, if HS2 happens, Derby & Nottingham - St Pancras will become inter-reigonal like the southern end of the WCML will.

 

[Yew]

Yes because it wouldn't fit onto our infrastructure, so the first station it arrived at would either lose a few inches off it's edges or more likely wreck the side of the ICE unit

You know what I mean . Those Veleros look much more comfortable than a voyager


Do siemens have any British loading gauge models, could they take a 350 and outfit it for 110mph LDPE? Using some velero interiors and maybe the front carriage profile?

 

[Chris125]

You know what I mean . Those Veleros look much more comfortable than a voyager

They dont tilt and they are built to continental loading gauge, so it would be odd if they didnt....

 

[NXEA!]

I'm pretty sure I've read that they think the Mark 3's are suitable for a 60 year life-span? If this is true and possible, here's what I would do:

Buy 5 car AC 444's (Class 344 anyone?), to replace the 90's+Mark 3+DVT rake's on the Norwich line, and then cascade the Mark 3's and DVT's to the MML to replace the HST's (12 sets of Mark 3's to replace 10 HST's), and order new 125mph Traxx loco's to run them with. I've counted 93 Standard Class Mark 3's which comprises the ones cascaded from the Norwich route and the ones stored at Long Marston.

Taking 2 First Class coaches, 1 Buffet, and 6 Standard class coaches as a standard rake, out of 93 Standard Class Mark 3's you have enough to make 15 rakes with 3 spare. There are 34 First Class coaches which again is made up of ones that can be cascaded from the Norwich route, and off lease ones. 30 would be needed to add to the 15 sets, so that leaves four spare. You can reseat three of those to add to the three spare Standard coaches to make the basis for a 16th set. I'm sure the ROSCO might be able to purchase around 4 coaches from DB or Cargo-D to complete the 16th set and have a small pool of spare coaches - albeit, a very small pool.

So with your 16 sets, you have enough to cascade your 10 MML HST's, and the 6 7 car 222's. Reform the sets to their orginal formation, so you have 7 9 car's, and 16 4 car's, plus the Pioneer's. Order 20 Pantograph cars to make the 4 car's all 5 car's, and then you can cascade the 9 car 222's to FGW to operate on the Devon and Cornwall route. Now if you can transfer the Corby route over to Thameslink and give it a limited stop service you can release around 4 further 222's.

Now, as far as I'm aware, the EMT HST's have 7 diagrams on weekdays (excluding the current arrangement during the 222 refurbishment) so if you can diagram 14 Mark 3 sets out of 16, you can cover for the HST's, the five 7 car 222 diagrams and possibly two diagrams for pair's of 5 car 222's. That releases a further 4 222's in addition to the four released by the 'Thameslink-ing' of the Corby line, so now you have 8 5 car 222's available, 3 of which would stay with EMT for extra capacity and service improvements, and the other 5 I would send to FGW, complete with new build carriages to bring them up to 9 carriages. The 125 Group lists that 12 different HST sets visit Plymouth or further West in the course of a day, however the diagrams also include Swansea turns. With Swansea being operated by IEP, you can consolidate the diagrams for the 222's into turns solely to Plymouth and Cornwall, which I expect could be covered by 10 diagrams. So that means you have 12 9 car 222's to cover the West of England diagrams. The HST's from FGW and EMT would either then be retired, or would be sent to XC to bolster capacity, with the MML being operated by 16 Mark 3 sets, and 15 bi-mode/electric 222's. There.

 

[Nym]

Oooor, just electrify the whole Midland Mainline and order some Inter-Reigonal EMUs or LDPE EMUs depending on what is happening with HS2, then all the 222s can go play with ICGW, Should be plenty for the WoE Services knocked up from 7 to 9 or 10 carrages.

Swansea being wired will cover that...
So, for ED needed stock is...

West of England I just read 10 diagrams so, 12 units, lets say 8 or 9 car units (with 2 or 3 Transformers that means using up 6 each of the 7 and 5 car units)

Hereford diagrams covered by some of the other 222s, hourly at 4hr journey time I recon on that needing 9 diagrams (11 units) to cover that. (That's the remaining 11 5 car 222s lengthened to 6 or 7 car by the addition of one or two transformer coaches)

Out of the 222 fleet that leaves (post EDification)...

One odd 7 car unit, and four four car units...

Add 2 or 3 into the 7 car unit to make a 'jumbo' unit
And add 1 or 2 into the 4 car units to make 5/6 car units.

The ex HT units can then be used over the Kemble Link onto Cheltenham Spa, and the Jumbo unit used interchangeably with the 9 car units. Or steal a carrage from the 'jumbo' to slot into a 6 car unit.

With the longer options being chosen...

12 9 car units
12 7 car units
3 6 car units

If I've miscalculated and more units where needed, then ordering some 390 units to take over Birmingham to Scotland would release at least 8 class 221 units, with the same treatment these could become an additional 8 7 car units. So that would be a total of...

12 9 car units
20 7 car units
3 6 car units

So...

Would 12 9 car units be enough to cover the West of England Services...

With 20 7 car units and 3 6 car units enough to cover Hereford, Worcester and Camarthen.

I'd personally reduce the B&H line to a shuttle and use Class 180s to run between Reading / Paddinton and Taunton. via the B&H

 

[Kneedown]

Just a couple of points, apologies if they've already been covered.....

Unless the entire, and by entire i mean Kettering to Syston via Manton, Nottingham to Trowell, Attenborough and Trent to Clay Cross, and Tapton to Sheffield via Beighton, as well as the main core route, is all to be wired then the stock must be Bi-mode as these are all important diversionary routes.

Secondly, any future stock must be 125mph capable as the linespeed is due to be raised to this in places in the not too distant future, with many more areas due to be raised to over 110mph as well.

Also, we do not know what the franchise map will look like by the time any electrification work starts. They are due for re-mapping so EMT, and indeed other TOC's may not exist or may exist in completely different forms.

 

[Nym]

Anything I'm saying relies on TOTAL electrification of all routes on the Midland Mainline, so allow all stock to be EMU or LHCS+ Electric Locomotive

 

[HSTEd]

You need the core route, routes to Sheffield, Leeds (probably) Doncaster, probably Manchester depending on what happens to journey times with electrification and the diversions down south to be done.

Wouldn't it be better to extend Thameslink all the way out to Leicester along the main route? The new rolling stock should be (I hope) faster accelerating than the old stuff and thus allow sufficient reductions in journey times below Bedford (or is it above bedford?) to be viable.

 

[anthony263]

Oooor, just electrify the whole Midland Mainline and order some Inter-Reigonal EMUs or LDPE EMUs depending on what is happening with HS2, then all the 222s can go play with ICGW, Should be plenty for the WoE Services knocked up from 7 to 9 or 10 carrages.

Swansea being wired will cover that...
So, for ED needed stock is...

West of England I just read 10 diagrams so, 12 units, lets say 8 or 9 car units (with 2 or 3 Transformers that means using up 6 each of the 7 and 5 car units)

Hereford diagrams covered by some of the other 222s, hourly at 4hr journey time I recon on that needing 9 diagrams (11 units) to cover that. (That's the remaining 11 5 car 222s lengthened to 6 or 7 car by the addition of one or two transformer coaches)

Out of the 222 fleet that leaves (post EDification)...

One odd 7 car unit, and four four car units...

Add 2 or 3 into the 7 car unit to make a 'jumbo' unit
And add 1 or 2 into the 4 car units to make 5/6 car units.

The ex HT units can then be used over the Kemble Link onto Cheltenham Spa, and the Jumbo unit used interchangeably with the 9 car units. Or steal a carrage from the 'jumbo' to slot into a 6 car unit.

With the longer options being chosen...

12 9 car units
12 7 car units
3 6 car units

If I've miscalculated and more units where needed, then ordering some 390 units to take over Birmingham to Scotland would release at least 8 class 221 units, with the same treatment these could become an additional 8 7 car units. So that would be a total of...

12 9 car units
20 7 car units
3 6 car units

So...

Would 12 9 car units be enough to cover the West of England Services...

With 20 7 car units and 3 6 car units enough to cover Hereford, Worcester and Camarthen.

I'd personally reduce the B&H line to a shuttle and use Class 180s to run between Reading / Paddinton and Taunton. via the B&H

Paddington - Hereford is 3 hours 22 minutes

 

[tbtc]

Wouldn't it be better to extend Thameslink all the way out to Leicester along the main route? The new rolling stock should be (I hope) faster accelerating than the old stuff and thus allow sufficient reductions in journey times below Bedford (or is it above bedford?) to be viable.

Yup - this would allow the Sheffield/Derby/Nottingham services to be non-stop south of Leicester, which would free up a lot of seats (and speed them up)

 

[IanXC]

The B&H Line would then be operated either by Turbos or Turbostars.

If the TPE N Network is electrified then this would be a reasonable home for the 185 fleet, or possibly with SWT operating them on the Exeter route, but thats far to in deep at the moment.

Given their engine specification and that there is currently no proposal for TPE South electrification, I'd keep them up here and use them on routes like Blackpool North-York-(Scarborough).

Also, we do not know what the franchise map will look like by the time any electrification work starts. They are due for re-mapping so EMT, and indeed other TOC's may not exist or may exist in completely different forms.

"Due for re-mapping" - thats a bit pessimistic isn't it! Unless the DfT go for the "superfranchise" option and merge EMT with EC/XC/TPE I really can't see much changing about the East Midlands franchise. Seems to work pretty well in its current format.

 

[ileikcaek]

I'm another in favor of just getting some traxx locos made for the MKIII sets. the MKIII's maybe old but they surely must have years left in them yet. Then later on replace the MKIII's with newly designed MKV carrriages.

Personally I don't think EMUs are the answer to everything.

 

[sprinterguy]

Wouldn't it be better to extend Thameslink all the way out to Leicester along the main route? The new rolling stock should be (I hope) faster accelerating than the old stuff and thus allow sufficient reductions in journey times below Bedford (or is it above bedford?) to be viable.

I agree with the similar views of several posters on here that Thameslink should be extended to first Corby and then Leicester. Depending on the frequency north of Bedford, then it would be possible to either run a circular service, clockwise and anti-clockwise, running Kettering-Market Harborough-Leicester-Melton Mowbray-Kettering (and vice-versa), or to treat the Corby and Melton Mowbray route as the MML slow lines between Kettering and Leicester, with all Thameslink services routed via the longer route through Corby. This follows a similar premise to LMs' Desiro services, where the slower journey time and longer route is offset by the assumption that very few people would use the slower service throughout between Leicester and St. Pancras (and beyond).

 

[asylumxl]

Yup - this would allow the Sheffield/Derby/Nottingham services to be non-stop south of Leicester, which would free up a lot of seats (and speed them up)

And reduce capacity massively on services which already suffer major overcrowding, further increase any delays incurred on route and decrease journey options.

 

[HSTEd]

And reduce capacity massively on services which already suffer major overcrowding, further increase any delays incurred on route and decrease journey options.

Wont Thameslink 2000 have so much more capacity than the current system that it would easily swallow the extra traffic north of St Pancras?

 

[asylumxl]

Wont Thameslink 2000 have so much more capacity than the current system that it would easily swallow the extra traffic north of St Pancras?

I doubt it. And it's still only 2 platforms at St Pancras International Low Level, so more trains, more chance of delays and cancellations being caused.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Given their engine specification and that there is currently no proposal for TPE South electrification, I'd keep them up here and use them on routes like Blackpool North-York-(Scarborough).

Yeah i agree completely use them for what they were designed for. Maybe taking other semi fast services on secondary routes where possible too. SOuth TPE as you say will never get electrified. But you could also try and 6 car south TPE maybe.

 

[tbtc]

And reduce capacity massively on services which already suffer major overcrowding, further increase any delays incurred on route and decrease journey options.

At the moment the long distance EMT services (to Derby/ Nottingham/ Sheffield etc) have to deal with Luton/ Bedford passengers using them as an alternative to Thameslink.

Once Thameslink gets its shiny new twelve coach EMUs, and additional services through the core, there's no need for the long distance EMT services to cater for the shorter distance London commuters.

 

[whhistle]

Sorry did I miss the entire bid process for ICEC? When did Virgin win it and when did they say they would replace all the rolling stock on the franchise?

Yeah, you must have missed that memo :P

What services do Northern or Greater Anglia run that would require 125mph DEMUs? Granted Northern currently use 180s but that is only a temporary situation until more suitable rolling stock is cascaded along to replace them.

It's not the top speed factor, it's about quick acceleration, less pollutions and getting rid of the older stock.

Also what use would EC have more HSTs? If anything they need more EMUs!

No, I said take the HST's away from East Coast and look at giving (basically) all the HST's from MML and East Coast to XC (with more to come later from GWML) so they cascade the Voyagers elsewhere. The Voyagers aren't really suited to long distance travel now are they :P



OR

Alternatively, they could just dig up the track and build the MML into HS2 and run it along there, diverting it to Birmingham at an appropriate place.
Now that would be something!

 

[asylumxl]

At the moment the long distance EMT services (to Derby/ Nottingham/ Sheffield etc) have to deal with Luton/ Bedford passengers using them as an alternative to Thameslink.

Once Thameslink gets its shiny new twelve coach EMUs, and additional services through the core, there's no need for the long distance EMT services to cater for the shorter distance London commuters.

And you've just made a huge asumption that all passengers are going to London. Infact you see a considerable number of passengers get on at both stations heading to Leicester and the midlands.

By your definition of distance, Reading shouldn't have IC service. Nor Milton Keynes. Nor Stevenage. Nor Peterborough.

 

[YorkshireBear]

At the moment the long distance EMT services (to Derby/ Nottingham/ Sheffield etc) have to deal with Luton/ Bedford passengers using them as an alternative to Thameslink.

Once Thameslink gets its shiny new twelve coach EMUs, and additional services through the core, there's no need for the long distance EMT services to cater for the shorter distance London commuters.

You do have to at least keep some stopping or you shall rule out services for these places northbound. Have to agree with asylumxl on that. However some services could be sped up like you say.

I would at least stop loads at the most northern point of thameslink on MML so that no one has to travel into london to return the same way northbound.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yeah, you must have missed that memo

Come on guys I've been a member here for a couple of years you need to start CCing me into these memos!

It's not the top speed factor, it's about quick acceleration, less pollutions and getting rid of the older stock.

Fair enough but I'm not convinced that better acceleration is a really a good enough reason to take what is true intercity stock and use it to replace what is essentially inter-regional/local stock. For instance my local line (Hull - Sheffield/Bridington/Scarborough) is run with 158s your proposal could see Voyagers on that line! An extreme example, but my point is a Voyager ≠ a Sprinter.

No, I said take the HST's away from East Coast and look at giving (basically) all the HST's from MML and East Coast to XC (with more to come later from GWML) so they cascade the Voyagers elsewhere.

Apologies my reading comprehension failed there

So we're going to replace modern rolling stock (which is compliant with all upcoming legislation) with rolling stock that's going to need modifications to meet things like DDA and also extensive life extension work (FGWs HSTs for instance are good to IEP introduction and that's about it without more work). To be honest I would rather see HSTs replaced wholesale where possible rather than cascaded back onto a vital main artery.

 

[asylumxl]

In terms of speeding up EMT services, there's not much in it time wise,the times vary widely even without these stops. Let's also not forget that some services stop at Luton Airport Parkway which also brings in a fair few passengers. EMT would also lose a decent chunk of revenue via ORCATS. If EMT really wanted rid of these stops, I doubt they'd introduce their own cheaper FC period return to the stations too.

 

[BR Blue]

I`ve looked at the latest Network Rail statements on further electrification. Thet suggest the MML, plus additional proposed lines , will be wired up after the GWML and North-West lines are completed. So it will be 2016 at the earliest and I guess around 2018-19 when completed.

I haven`t seen much info about changes to future service patterns other than a requirement for an extra 11 coaches for London trains.

The HST`s will be pushing an average age of 40 years by 2019. The mkIII`s would need modifications to meet disability access regulations. Most likely to be scraped or dished out to heritage lines.

After the all the problems surrounding the IEP and Thameslink, I`d expect the DfT to take a step back from rolling stock procurement. Instead, allow TOC`s, present and future, to specify their own passenger stock requirements. Chiltern appear to be ok with this arrangement.


Hitachi`s IEP is gonna be a front runner as a replacement for the HST on the MML. A larger order could bump off the class 222`s to lesser duties or to another TOC.

It is up to other train builders to come up with alternatives, otherwise the UK will turn into IEP-land.(will we ever see this Polaris train on British shores)

The option to use converted electo-diesel Meridians allows instant usage of the overhead lines as they are being contructed. This option will probably be tagged onto 220/221 conversions for CrossCountry. Cheaper than an entire new fleet and it will save British jobs (RMT will be happy).

Let`s hope a bright future.