Future of the Intercity 125s

[Xavi]

All of these ideas assume that there will be absolutely no money spent on the B&H at the same time, hence no improvements in the times that you want to spend huge sums of money on the Bristol route to compete against.

Totally agree - 1 hr 50 to Exeter including a Reading or Taunton stop is easily possible with the right (electrification) B&H investment. It was 2 hrs in the early 80s.

 

[tbtc]

Totally agree - 1 hr 50 to Exeter including a Reading or Taunton stop is easily possible with the right (electrification) B&H investment. It was 2 hrs in the early 80s.

Surely there are some speed improvements on the B&H that could bring down the time to something like you suggest?

And a lot fewer "local" trains to worry about than trying to squeeze through Bristol.

 

[The Planner]

EDIT #2:
DfT Claims that the IEP will reduce London-Bristol travel times by 22 minutes, which would reduce the typical travel time to somewhere in the vicinity of 80 minutes.

Take those claims with a pinch of salt, they mean the one train a day that runs non-stop with a path that is stripped to the bone to tight timings.... driver has to sneeze the wrong way and that ends up late.

 

[IanXC]

Extending to Newquay and Penzance from Plymouth allows you to convert the entire XC fleet used in the South West to electric operation without surrendering the excursion trains to Newquay or the regular extensions to Penzance.

Additionally the line speeds on the Newquay branch would make it suitable for trolley wire type equipment that would be rather cheaper than the equipment necessary on the Berks and Hants.

And the line goes within a few hundred yards of a multiple 400kV circuit substation at Quintrell Downs.

I remember reading someone's post that the electric supply points in Cornwall were potentially a problem to electrification. Could Quintrell Downs be the supply point for Cornwall? Would it be cheaper for any Cornish electrification scheme to include Newquay and use this as the supply point, rather that incur the cost of a new supply point?

 

[The Ham]

Thinking about it further, not electrifying the B&H doesn't mean that there wouldn't be services along it to Cornwall, only that they would have to be bi-model. It is just that running a regular EMU train service via Bristol to Cornwall would bring wider benefits to the network which electrifying the B&H before the Cornish mainline would not.

Also once all the services along the B&H are bi-model the case for electrification drops significantly until near to the withdrawal of bi-model trains.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Thinking about it further, not electrifying the B&H doesn't mean that there wouldn't be services along it to Cornwall, only that they would have to be bi-model. It is just that running a regular EMU train service via Bristol to Cornwall would bring wider benefits to the network which electrifying the B&H before the Cornish mainline would not.

Also once all the services along the B&H are bi-model the case for electrification drops significantly until near to the withdrawal of bi-model trains.

Or electrified via Salisbury-Yeovil?

You are looking rather a long way ahead when talking about the withdrawal of the IEC! Unless they perform as badly as some Ansaldo products such as the 1995 Oslo trams, now up for replacement, and the Danish IC4 trains which are a perpetual headache.

 

[aylesbury]

Perhaps the power cars will be scrapped ,but the trailers will be converted to loco haul for Norwich line and maybe long distance in Scotland .A Traxx loco would be the ideal unit to haul them and of course they would be comlpetely refurbished to modern standards.

 

[The Ham]

Perhaps the power cars will be scrapped ,but the trailers will be converted to loco haul for Norwich line and maybe long distance in Scotland .A Traxx loco would be the ideal unit to haul them and of course they would be comlpetely refurbished to modern standards.

The problem with that, is that even if the trailers do last to 2035 that is only a maximum 18 years after the first IC125's are due for renewal, potentially leaving you with a loco with at least 12 years of life left (when the engines in the 125's still have some life in them). Also the trailers will require a major overhaul, potentially making it more expensive per year than new stock.

 

[HSTEd]

I remember reading someone's post that the electric supply points in Cornwall were potentially a problem to electrification. Could Quintrell Downs be the supply point for Cornwall? Would it be cheaper for any Cornish electrification scheme to include Newquay and use this as the supply point, rather that incur the cost of a new supply point?

Quintrill Downs is the furthest west GSP on a 400kV circuit, there are others east of there that can be used to power the railway, including atleast one other that is within a few hundreds metres of railway property (at Bodmin Parkway).

There is no problem in procuring sufficiently stable power supplies, you could potentially single end feed the entire system from just the Bodmin substation but it would be far more energy efficient in my opinion to include Newquay and single end feed from Quintrell Downs.

And to the question of me comparing to the unupgraded B&H line..... there will be no significant money spent on it for the simple reason that it isn't really a sufficiently important route.
A heavily upgraded route would enable Taunton to be served via Bristol with ease, leaving only Westbury and similar places to be sized by bi-mode InterCity stock.

Any money spent on the B&H only really benefits London-Cornwall services and to a lesser extent the services to places like Westbury.
Money spent on the Bristol to Exeter line gets most of those benefits and it also benefits the XC network.

 

[D365]

The problem with that, is that even if the trailers do last to 2035 that is only a maximum 18 years after the first IC125's are due for renewal, potentially leaving you with a loco with at least 12 years of life left (when the engines in the 125's still have some life in them). Also the trailers will require a major overhaul, potentially making it more expensive per year than new stock.

If the 43 bodies are pretty much built the same as Mk3s, couldn't you just replace everything apart from the engines? Unless there's something preventing this...

 

[Kali]

A heavily upgraded route would enable Taunton to be served via Bristol with ease, leaving only Westbury and similar places to be sized by bi-mode InterCity stock.

Any money spent on the B&H only really benefits London-Cornwall services and to a lesser extent the services to places like Westbury.
Money spent on the Bristol to Exeter line gets most of those benefits and it also benefits the XC network.

Good for Taunton, that centre of the South-West.

And we're back here again, spending fortunes on the long way round so anyone currently on B&H services gains nothing and likely ends up losing with slower services. Show me where your purported gains in travel time are coming from - and sensible figures allowing for how you can't just magically wave a 140mph wand at every corner.

I'm going to say subjectively too, that other than some I've had to take at more extreme times, every service on that route I've taken has been well filled - and when I really travelled a lot in the early 90s practically always overfilled - so I think we should probably keep the idea of adding extra services in mind for the future. You can't live in the SW without owning a car, really, but it won't be long before you can't afford to drive it when there's alternatives.

 

[Xavi]

Quintrill Downs is the furthest west GSP on a 400kV circuit, there are others east of there that can be used to power the railway, including atleast one other that is within a few hundreds metres of railway property (at Bodmin Parkway).

There is no problem in procuring sufficiently stable power supplies, you could potentially single end feed the entire system from just the Bodmin substation but it would be far more energy efficient in my opinion to include Newquay and single end feed from Quintrell Downs.

And to the question of me comparing to the unupgraded B&H line..... there will be no significant money spent on it for the simple reason that it isn't really a sufficiently important route.
A heavily upgraded route would enable Taunton to be served via Bristol with ease, leaving only Westbury and similar places to be sized by bi-mode InterCity stock.

Any money spent on the B&H only really benefits London-Cornwall services and to a lesser extent the services to places like Westbury.
Money spent on the Bristol to Exeter line gets most of those benefits and it also benefits the XC network.

This is complete and utter nonsense about B&H not being a 'sufficiently important' route. Full express services at hourly intervals and semi-fast services as well, but let's send them all the long way round at 140mph in amongst stoppers and extend journey times while we're at it! It will ever happen in this age of keeping voters happy, increasing rail travel and Network Rail minimising delay minutes.

 

[Nym]

This is complete and utter nonsense about B&H not being a 'sufficiently important' route. Full express services at hourly intervals and semi-fast services as well, but let's send them all the long way round at 140mph in amongst stoppers and extend journey times while we're at it! It will ever happen in this age of keeping voters happy, increasing rail travel and Network Rail minimising delay minutes.

As opposed to sections of line with half hourly 'fully express' services being run that won't be electrified any time soon by the looks of things...

Everyone thinks their own line is the most important...

 

[172212]

Would they not be of benefit cascaded to FGW to work all Oxford & London Paddington - Worcester/Great Malvern services?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The problem with that, is that even if the trailers do last to 2035 that is only a maximum 18 years after the first IC125's are due for renewal, potentially leaving you with a loco with at least 12 years of life left (when the engines in the 125's still have some life in them). Also the trailers will require a major overhaul, potentially making it more expensive per year than new stock.

Buy new trailers when the HST trailers become past economic repair and put those behind the locomotives. This stuff hasn't got a "use-by" date stamped on it.

But as you know there are many levels of overhaul with different costs. The biggest difference for the passengers comes from cosmetic overhaul ie new cushion covers, carpets and paint. That is inexpensive. The next stage up is to change the lighting, which is necessary anyway because LED lighting will become the new standard.

The heavy stuff "under the floor" is relatively much more expensive to overhaul or replace - bogies, wheelsets, etc. When the bodyshell is corroded or fatigued then it is time to replace that and recover anything useful for re-use. Like the hammer which has had four heads and six handles. It is efficient and cost effective. It never gives you a power-operated hammer but it knocks the nails in perfectly well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the 43 bodies are pretty much built the same as Mk3s, couldn't you just replace everything apart from the engines? Unless there's something preventing this...

Interesting question. They have had more vibration than the hauled vehicles and may be nearer the end of their fatigue life. Otherwise they could probably be kept going as driving van trailers. Anything is possible but it depends on what one wants to do and how much it will cost - don't forget that some things sound as if they will be inexpensive and can turn out dear, and others can sound expensive but turn out not to be.

This is the value of scoping excercises.

 

[Xavi]

As opposed to sections of line with half hourly 'fully express' services being run that won't be electrified any time soon by the looks of things...

Everyone thinks their own line is the most important...

Worth reviewing the content of the whole thread:

The case is that B&H will continue with HST or bi-mode IEP with gradual electrification further West and will not be downgraded with services diverted through Bristol and an associated increase in journey times.

Electrification west of Newbury will be after current GWML, MML, other CP5 schemes and likely Sheffield - Doncaster / Leeds and Derby - Westerleigh / Severn Tunnel Jnc (probably Chiltern as well) in CP6. Once those routes are completed, there are no other trunk routes that could justify wiring before B&H and Cogload - Taunton.

The whole argument is also predicated on the basis that electrification will become cheaper in real terms following the experience gained on the large CP5 schemes and continuing declined in construction costs that a stagnant economy is bringing (it will be weak for many years to come, which will further boost the case for infrastructure investment). It's virtually a no brainer to electrify rather than order new diesel trains right now. Once the unit cost declines it will be a certainty.

 

[sprinterguy]

Would they not be of benefit cascaded to FGW to work all Oxford & London Paddington - Worcester/Great Malvern services?

Those services will be worked by Bi-mode IEPs in a few years time. That is one of the routes that HSTs are going to be released from.

 

[RobShipway]

Those services will be worked by Bi-mode IEPs in a few years time. That is one of the routes that HSTs are going to be released from.

Yes, the route that will probably still have 125's for years to come is the Berks & Hants route with trains going on to Devon, Somerset and Cornwall as the electrification at the moment will only go as far as Newbury and as such the IEP hybrid units I don't think would have enough energy stored to then continue on Diesel power alone.

 

[JamesRowden]

Yes, the route that will probably still have 125's for years to come is the Berks & Hants route with trains going on to Devon, Somerset and Cornwall as the electrification at the moment will only go as far as Newbury and as such the IEP hybrid units I don't think would have enough energy stored to then continue on Diesel power alone.

You clearly do not understand how the Bi-mode will work. They will be DEMUs that can be powered using OHLE (more power) rather than the on-board diesel generator. The diesel engine will be powerful enough to provide the top speed required on the unelectrified lines that they will run along. The cost of having such trains is the extra cost of the equipment and the energy required to accelerate the additional train weight of the diesel generator (compared to a purely eletric train). To run further they can refueled like any diesel train (e.g. HST, 222).

 

[RobShipway]

You clearly do not understand how the Bi-mode will work. They will be DEMUs that can be powered using OHLE (more power) rather than the on-board diesel generator. The diesel engine will be powerful enough to provide the top speed required on the unelectrified lines that they will run along. The cost of having such trains is the extra cost of the equipment and the energy required to accelerate the additional train weight of the diesel generator (compared to a purely eletric train). To run further they can refueled like any diesel train (e.g. HST, 222).

I understand how the bi - mode will work better than you think, as I have a friend that works for Hitachi on the IEP project and the comment actually came from her about the power which in the IEP trains is stored, such that the electrics can continue working for many hours. However, the diesel engine that Hitachi intend to use may not be able to power the trains that have started from London Paddington beyond Exter, but which time the stored electric power has dissolved. Especially if those trains have been stabled for sometime within London Paddington station.

 

[JamesRowden]

I understand how the bi - mode will work better than you think, as I have a friend that works for Hitachi on the IEP project and the comment actually came from her about the power which in the IEP trains is stored, such that the electrics can continue working for many hours. However, the diesel engine that Hitachi intend to use may not be able to power the trains that have started from London Paddington beyond Exter, but which time the stored electric power has dissolved. Especially if those trains have been stabled for sometime within London Paddington station.

It is energy that is stored, not power. And the simple solution of not being able to store enough energy/fuel is to put a bigger a fuel tank on the train. XCs Voyagers can run all the way across the country without any mains power. The IEPs could visit refuelling facilities at Plymouth with the tanks being refilled for every run.

If for some reason they still could not find space for a big enough for a fuel tank on each carriage (if that is what is planned) and space for some AC equipment on each set then they could build a special generator carriage (also has the pantagraph) with space for fuel and one big diesel generator where otherwise passengers might be. This could then power the rest of the train using this one big AC generator to power AC motors on each carriage (just like from the OHLE). This might provide the acceleration of MUs and something near to the efficiency of locamotive hauled trains. PROBLEM SOLVED!

 

[AndyLandy]

I understand how the bi - mode will work better than you think, as I have a friend that works for Hitachi on the IEP project and the comment actually came from her about the power which in the IEP trains is stored, such that the electrics can continue working for many hours. However, the diesel engine that Hitachi intend to use may not be able to power the trains that have started from London Paddington beyond Exter, but which time the stored electric power has dissolved. Especially if those trains have been stabled for sometime within London Paddington station.

How is this "power" to be stored within the IEPs? I'd be pretty surprised if the hybrid IEPs are anything other than diesel generators that power the EMU engines (and the rest of the train set with them)

 

[RobShipway]

It is energy that is stored, not power. And the simple solution of not being able to store enough energy/fuel is to put a bigger a fuel tank on the train. XCs Voyagers can run all the way across the country without any mains power. The IEPs could visit refuelling facilities at Plymouth with the tanks being refilled for every run.

If for some reason they still could not find space for a big enough for a fuel tank on each carriage (if that is what is planned) and space for some AC equipment on each set then they could build a special generator carriage (also has the pantagraph) with space for fuel and one big diesel generator where otherwise passengers might be. This could then power the rest of the train using this one big AC generator to power AC motors on each carriage (just like from the OHLE). This might provide the acceleration of MUs and something near to the efficiency of locamotive hauled trains. PROBLEM SOLVED!

I totally agree with your comment above Andy, because for me that would be common sense being used for a change on trains here in the UK.

With regards to Andylandy's post, I was told that they would have powerpacks that would store unused power when being used on the OHLE. However, those power packs onloy last up to a couple of hours and woudl work alongside the diesel power when away from the OHLE. In which if it was not for the extra weight, is a nice idea but the IEP Hybrid trains will all ready be heavier than an HST with both the generator/pantograph for OHLE and the diesel engine on the first and last cars.

I also think that part of the reason that HST's will stay on is down to the cost unless, the Goevrnment can get a better price for extra IEP hybrids such that the Diesel Engines can be removed when full electrification at some point to Penzance etc... is completed.

 

[sprinterguy]

I totally agree with your comment above Andy, because for me that would be common sense being used for a change on trains here in the UK.

With regards to Andylandy's post, I was told that they would have powerpacks that would store unused power when being used on the OHLE. However, those power packs onloy last up to a couple of hours and woudl work alongside the diesel power when away from the OHLE. In which if it was not for the extra weight, is a nice idea but the IEP Hybrid trains will all ready be heavier than an HST with both the generator/pantograph for OHLE and the diesel engine on the first and last cars.

The diesel engines on the Bi-mode IEP trains will not be located in the first and last cars of the train. They willl be located under the floors on intermediate carriages, accounting for three vehicles in a 5-car set and five vehicles in a 9-car set.

Additionally I have only heard the term "powerpacks" being referred to in regards to the IEP when talking about the 940hp diesel engines that are to be fitted to the trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How is this "power" to be stored within the IEPs? I'd be pretty surprised if the hybrid IEPs are anything other than diesel generators that power the EMU engines (and the rest of the train set with them)

Or traction motors as they are more commonly known.

 

[AndyLandy]

Or more accurately, traction motors as they are more commonly known.

Yes, those.

 

[sprinterguy]

However, the diesel engine that Hitachi intend to use may not be able to power the trains that have started from London Paddington beyond Exter, but which time the stored electric power has dissolved. Especially if those trains have been stabled for sometime within London Paddington station.

I have serious difficulty believing that. The 5-car Bi-mode sets will have nearly 3000hp available when working off the diesel engines, so I cannot see why it would be necessary to rely on residual electrical energy at all. The diesel engines are in effect generating the trains' own electricity source. I can't imagine that Hitachi would design the fuel tanks to be smaller than the range required for a typical all day diagram either.

A restricted range when running on diesel power sounds more like a concern that could be levelled at the pure-electric IEP sets, which will only have one diesel generator per unit to allow a "limp home" capability, at a speed of 40mph, if the wires go down.

 

[Zoe]

Wouldn't there be issues with running north of Edinburgh if bi-mode range was limited to the distance from Newbury to Exeter. Edinburgh to Inverness (via Stirling) is over 60 miles further than Newbury to Exeter and 10 miles further than Newbury to Plymouth. There would need to be sufficient power available for the banks west of Newton Abbot but this would also be the case for Druimuachdar and Slochd.

 

[The Ham]

I'd have thought that the electric IEP (with ONE engine for self rescue) will have the limit on their range and power due to only having a small fuel tank to keep the weight and costs down. As there is no need to design them to last more than an hour or two.

 

[Phil6219]

I have a genius solution to this issue, I have thought about it long & hard and believe me it's foolproof and proven to work.

An electric locomotive hauls some carriages along the electrified section of route and then a diesel locomotive hauls those carriages over the non electrified section. It's proven to work overseas and did work over here for a good 50 odd years too under BR...

Its sarcasm before someone jumps on me but in all fairness it would easily sort out that problem, don't get me started on how we could increase and decrease capacity by adding & removing carriages...

Phil

 

[Goatboy]

I must admit I was suprised to see just how many trains in Germany and Austria when I was over there earlier this year were loco hauled. Whilst there were units too it seems the British are disproportionately obsessed with multiple units.