IEP Annoucement

[Zoe]

That is the £64000 question. Some TOCs would prefer straight and simple EMUs and use the money saved (over the life of the stock - IEP isn't going to be cheap to maintain) to extend the wiring further

Good plan in theory but Plymouth is likely to be as far as the wires will ever go so you'd either have to terminate everything there or retain a small HST fleet just for Penzance.

 

[Daimler]

Good plan in theory but Plymouth is likely to be as far as the wires will ever go so you'd either have to terminate everything there or retain a small HST fleet just for Penzance.

Which is, I believe, the current plan anyway. The majority of TOCs would prefer, as starrymarkb says, a simple EMU fleet, with the money saved going towards extending electrification. In 10 years (or more!), who knows what will replace the retained HSTs?

 

[Zoe]

Which is, I believe, the current plan anyway.

Yes but if electrification were to reach Plymouth you'd have an even smaller fleet of HSTs than currently planned.

 

[Daimler]

Yes but if electrification were to reach Plymouth you'd have an even smaller fleet of HSTs than currently planned.

I was referring rather to the planned retention of HSTs for West of England services under the present plan - when/if electrification is extended to Plymouth, I repeat, who knows what will happen? It's unlikely to be in the next decade!

We may never have wires to Plymouth (though I would say it's likely they'll make it to Exeter).

 

[Zoe]

We may never have wires to Plymouth (though I would say it's likely they'll make it to Exeter).

It would be pointless ending the wires at Exeter. Very few trains terminate there so you'd then need either bi-mode or have diesels under the wires. If bi-mode isn't used then there is very little benefit in electrifying at all. If the IEP is completelys scrapped though then HSTs would have to be retained on all the routes not electrified unless there was a new order of DMUs.

 

[Daimler]

It would be pointless ending the wires at Exeter. Very few trains terminate there so you'd then need either bi-mode or have diesels under the wires. If bi-mode isn't used then there is very little benefit in electrifying at all. If the IEP is completelys scrapped though then HSTs would have to be retained on all the routes not electrified unless there was a new order of DMUs.

The timetable can, of course, be changed...

You have a point - it would be better to continue the wires to Plymouth. However, this isn't in any plan at the moment, so...

I'm just relishing the prospect of the demise of the bi-mode.

 

[Zoe]

However, this isn't in any plan at the moment, so...

Neither is having wires to Exeter though. Yes you could change the timetable to terminate some of the services at Exeter but there is quite limited capacity at Exeter and I doubt a reduction in service between Exeter and Plymouth would be popular.

 

[Blindtraveler]

if additional wires are forthcoming then its simple enough to scrap bi-mode. new iep sets for east coast, new 390s for scotland birming via wcml, cascaded voyagers to unwired west of England, loco hauled mk4s north of edb with a loco change at edb

 

[RobShipway]

if additional wires are forthcoming then its simple enough to scrap bi-mode. new iep sets for east coast, new 390s for scotland birming via wcml, cascaded voyagers to unwired west of England, loco hauled mk4s north of edb with a loco change at edb

I agree with your comments, but I would have Bombardier build an extra coach for each of the Voyagers a) for extra seating and b) to hold a pantograph on top so that they become the hybrid train as they all ready have proven diesel technology.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I agree with your comments, but I would have Bombardier build an extra coach for each of the Voyagers a) for extra seating and b) to hold a pantograph on top so that they become the hybrid train as they all ready have proven diesel technology.

makes sense as there plans are ready to go for this. I'd stil cascade them away from wcml and xc work in part.

 

[cj_1985]

I agree with your comments, but I would have Bombardier build an extra coach for each of the Voyagers a) for extra seating and b) to hold a pantograph on top so that they become the hybrid train as they all ready have proven diesel technology.

i totally agree with you...
although id probably say increase all 220/221 units to atleast 6 carraiges inc. the pantograph carraige that way it would provide equal numbers of seats on both class 220 voyagers and on the 221 super voyagers...

 

[Blindtraveler]

again, makes sense. If they wanted to do some kind of bi-mode other than rebuilt voyagers then maybe bi-mode loco's for the east coast hauled mk4 sets which incidentally would also work hul etc.

 

[Zoe]

again, makes sense. If they wanted to do some kind of bi-mode other than rebuilt voyagers then maybe bi-mode loco's for the east coast hauled mk4 sets which incidentally would also work hul etc.

Bi-mode locos would be pointless. It would be as bad as dragging the underfloor engines all the way from London to Edinburgh but without any of the benefits of a multiple unit.

 

[starrymarkb]

Plus bi-mode isn't really doable in a locomotive without seriously compromising performance in either or both modes. There isn't room for both modes (units distribute their gear along the train using multiple small components, a loco has to fit everything into a ~ 18m body, while needing a lot more power (moving itself and unpowered coaches) and consequently keeping everything cool. (ie space around the engine and Thrystor banks)

Take Class 73 - 1600hp from 750V - 600hp diesel engine. You are looking at a third of the power..

 

[Blindtraveler]

i thought that would be the case, was trying to see it from an accountants 'oh lets build this clever bi-mode engine' point of view.

 

[transmanche]

Plus bi-mode isn't really doable in a locomotive without seriously compromising performance in either or both modes. [...] Take Class 73 - 1600hp from 750V - 600hp diesel engine. You are looking at a third of the power..

But the Class 73 design is almost 50 years old. How about something more modern like the Bombardier ALP-45DP? Up to 5900hp on 25kv and up to 3889hp on diesel?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Even if electrification is extended to Swansea I doubt it will be the end of the IEP just that bi-mode won't be used for Swansea. You still have the north of Edinburgh services and trains to Worcester and Chelthenham.

But will it be worth the hassle? I like to think that Roger Ford knows what he's talking about...

That is the £64000 question. Some TOCs would prefer straight and simple EMUs and use the money saved (over the life of the stock - IEP isn't going to be cheap to maintain) to extend the wiring further

if additional wires are forthcoming then its simple enough to scrap bi-mode. new iep sets for east coast, new 390s for scotland birming via wcml, cascaded voyagers to unwired west of England, loco hauled mk4s north of edb with a loco change at edb

How many things are there for a 26m coach to hit between Bristol and Weston-Super-Mare? How about between Swindon and Severn Tunnel Junction (via Cheltenham Spa)? How about between Cardiff and Swansea, or Swansea and Carmarthen? How much will it cost to remove said things?

Obvious solution as I see it is to spend that money on electrifying those routes (except Swansea to Carmarthen as that's only between 1 and 3 trains per day) instead of making them 26m coach-compatible. You then use Intercity 225s on those routes and order all-electric IEPs for PAD - Bristol/Oxford and all East Coast's routes (stick a 67 on the front when the wires run out. If you shift the times of some workings about a bit the 67s used on the sleepers can run back on the front of an IEP, and vice versa (assuming of course you can stable an IEP overnight at Aberdeen and Inverness)).

Order pantograph cars for any Voyagers running wholly electrified routes and move them to the Cotswolds line. Leave Intercity 125s on the London -> South West via Westbury services (as is being done anyway) and route any London -> South West via Bristol services via Westbury as well. Introduce a new Intercity 125 operated service between Bristol and wherever it is in the South West you want to cover for the loss of the direct London - Bristol - South West services. That way 125s only run between PAD and Reading/Newbury and Bristol - Weston-Super-Mare under the wires and you don't need to build any new Intercity trains with diesel engines.

You will need to buy some new engines to life-extend some 47s to take over from the 91s for Carmarthen and Pembroke. You'd need to fit those 47s with TDM so while your at it do another 6 47s to work with the remaining mrk2 DBSOs to release doubled-up 158s for other uses. Those uses would be Cambrian hourly service and 2-hourly Cardiff - South West Wales express (via Swansea District Line) if you let me decide what to do with them.

 

[starrymarkb]

But the Class 73 design is almost 50 years old. How about something more modern like the Bombardier ALP-45DP? Up to 5900hp on 25kv and up to 3889hp on diesel?

Well it's too tall and too heavy! 131t on 4 axles makes the 67 look lightweight

 

[Woody]

HSTs are good to 2035!
http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/hsts-are-good-to-2035.html

 

[Blindtraveler]

would a 67 cope with an iep on the likes of an inverness? I dont know but I'm wondering. Also platforming on iether run becomes an issue length wise. Some good ideas there though, similar to mine but for simplicities sake I'd put 225s with a deezol north of edb with a loco change at Waverley. Then we have no deezols under wires, retain direct services and no bi-mode.

It wouldnt take much to wire up the remaining bits of the xc scotland bhm route, retain some voyagers for off wires runs but cascade the majoritty of them, along with the wcml ones to greater westen with the panto coach and introduce iep varients on the xc/ec runs and 390s to wcml.

You then need iep depots in the west of England, london, midlands and scotland with some doing servicing only and 2 out of those, say london and midlands doing heavy stuff. 390s are already provided for and Edinburgh already know about the mk4s.

Whilst at it, you build enough 390s to allow tilt and 125mph running on the newly electrified scotland manchester. If bombardia are restarting a 22x production line anyway, you take the chance to bang in an order for some 5 car 222s for regional express work e.g edinburgh/glasgow - aberdeen/inverness, liverpool noredge, birmingham stansted, swt's deezol services etc. This makes sense as 158s etc wil be life expired in the next decade.

 

[ainsworth74]

If bombardia are restarting a 22x production line anyway, you take the chance to bang in an order for some 5 car 222s for regional express work e.g edinburgh/glasgow - aberdeen/inverness, liverpool noredge, birmingham stansted

222s will be over kill for most of those routes. Glasgow/Edinburgh is being electrified in the not to distant future so you would be building new trains to be replaced almost immediately. Aberdeen/Inverness there isn't enough high speed running to warrant a 125mph DMU, same on Liverpool/Norwich furthermore on that run you need units designed to minimise dwell time (think 1/3 2/3 doors) as it has high loadings as well as the fact that this route is lots of smaller services stuck together not many people doing journeys of more than an hour or so, therefore a full Intercity train isn't needed. Same problems on Birmingham/Stansted not enough high speed running and need to reduce dwell times. 222s are very good intercity DMUs but that's the point, those services are either regional services, being electrified or not fast enough to warrant 125mph DMUs. Leave 222s on true intercity runs.

Also no offence intended but if you could run your posts through a spell checker before posting it would make it a lot easier to read.

 

[w1bbl3]

Brunel built GWML and SWML as broad gauge 2145mm so actually clearance issues should only relate to post construction additions such as the Swindon to Patchway link, which was of course extensively rebuilt to enable 125mph HST operation's back in the 70's.

The bigger problem will be height clearance under bridges and tunnels for OHLE and if Network rail does it properly, which they won't the whole electrified route should be rebuilt to UK1 loading gauge anyway. As a side point I believe Network rail plan on resignalling the route with ERTMS parallel to electrification to avoid the need to 'immunise' existing colour light signals.

 

[Blindtraveler]

222s will be over kill for most of those routes. Glasgow/Edinburgh is being electrified in the not to distant future so you would be building new trains to be replaced almost immediately. Aberdeen/Inverness there isn't enough high speed running to warrant a 125mph DMU, same on Liverpool/Norwich furthermore on that run you need units designed to minimise dwell time (think 1/3 2/3 doors) as it has high loadings as well as the fact that this route is lots of smaller services stuck together not many people doing journeys of more than an hour or so, therefore a full Intercity train isn't needed. Same problems on Birmingham/Stansted not enough high speed running and need to reduce dwell times. 222s are very good intercity DMUs but that's the point, those services are either regional services, being electrified or not fast enough to warrant 125mph DMUs. Leave 222s on true intercity runs.

Also no offence intended but if you could run your posts through a spell checker before posting it would make it a lot easier to read.

appologies my friend!

 

[Rhydgaled]

HSTs are good to 2035!
http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/hsts-are-good-to-2035.html

Given that the first power car was built in 1976 (assuming wiki is not refering to the prototype power cars) it could be in service to 60 years old.

would a 67 cope with an iep on the likes of an inverness? I dont know but I'm wondering. Also platforming on iether run becomes an issue length wise. Some good ideas there though, similar to mine but for simplicities sake I'd put 225s with a deezol north of edb with a loco change at Waverley. Then we have no deezols under wires, retain direct services and no bi-mode.

It wouldnt take much to wire up the remaining bits of the xc scotland bhm route, retain some voyagers for off wires runs but cascade the majoritty of them, along with the wcml ones to greater westen with the panto coach and introduce iep varients on the xc/ec runs and 390s to wcml.

You then need iep depots in the west of England, london, midlands and scotland with some doing servicing only and 2 out of those, say london and midlands doing heavy stuff. 390s are already provided for and Edinburgh already know about the mk4s.

Whilst at it, you build enough 390s to allow tilt and 125mph running on the newly electrified scotland manchester. If bombardia are restarting a 22x production line anyway, you take the chance to bang in an order for some 5 car 222s for regional express work e.g edinburgh/glasgow - aberdeen/inverness, liverpool noredge, birmingham stansted, swt's deezol services etc. This makes sense as 158s etc wil be life expired in the next decade.

I would have had IC225s loco-swaping at Edinburgh too, but they are also needed on Great Western as the only push-pull 140mph stock we have. There aren't enough 225s for both routes so if you left them on East Coast you would still need IEP for Great Western's Swansea, Cheltenham and Weston-Super-Mare routes (therefore restricting electrification because of the cost of clearing for 26m coaches (I've heard a tunnel around about Narberth will need widening if IEP is to go down there, which is going to be expensive and Paddington to Cardiff/Swansea is a long way to run a bi-mode Voyager or a diesel (Intercity 125) under the wires)). The way I suggested, you only have 125s under wires between Weston-Super-Mare and Bristol and between Newbury/Reading and Paddington. You only have bi-modes (for Costswold line) under the wires between Oxford and Paddington, if you could attach a dragging loco at Oxford I'd use EMUs instead (perhaps a follow on order of 395s, with end doors rather than 1/3 2/3 ???).

If IC125s can be life-extended to make it to 60 years old, then so can 158s. That would take them to 2049. Good thing too, in my opinion they are irreplaceable. The more recent units built to do the job of 158s (eg. 175s) are ridiculously overweight. Rural lines need something really lightweight to minimise track wear and with the best possible fuel economy to keep costs down, and being lightweight Sprinters are great. In other words, 158s are to a rural line what an Intercity 125 is for a non-electrified Intercity route, totally brilliant. Hopefully by the time they are replaced there will have been a lot of electrification and thinking will have moved on to allow a replacement to be built which isn’t any heavier than Sprinters.

Given electrics are supposed to have a longer lifespan than diesels I think we can give Intercity 225s 65 years, taking them beyond 2050. I sure hope somebody fits regenerative breaking to the 91s, that would make them very efficient indeed (as it is they are about as efficient as Pendolinos, which do have regenerative breaking).

 

[tbtc]

I would have had IC225s loco-swaping at Edinburgh too, but they are also needed on Great Western as the only push-pull 140mph stock we have

Is the GWML going to run at 140MPH?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Is the GWML going to run at 140MPH?

There's no reason why it shouldn't be if ERTMS is installed from 2017 (with most done by 2025), as was the plan at one point. No idea if the plan has slipped because ERTMS flamingoed up on the Cambrian. Anyway, the point still stands even if the speed stays at 125mph, the only other push-pull Intercity stock we have can only do 110mph.

 

[Zoe]

As I have said before, should linespeed be improved to 140 mph to Bristol and to 125 mph from Bristol to Exeter you could electrify from Bristol to Plymouth and there wouldn't be any need to use the Berks and Hants.

 

[Blindtraveler]

As a big fan of 158s i'd love to see them life extended! Cracking trains and a joy to travel on as long as the air cons been overhauled. Alongside HSTs, there my most traveled on classes.

 

[NXEA!]

If it was my choice what I would do is order this IEP in 10 car and 5 car versions. A 10 car all electric and the 5's in bi-mode. I think 10 car's would be a good idea personally as rail-traffic is growing, and if you look at the ECML (9 cars) and the GWML (8 cars) the services for most of the day are packed already. Also it saves having to insert the extra carriages at a later date, and I'm assuming there's going to be a lot of software involved. This could prevent any teething troubles with the insertion. I would completely IEP-ise the ECML, with the 91's and Mark 4's moving to the GWML and operating London-Bristol TM/and Swansea services, with 67's being attached at Cardiff for Swansea. The ECML would just get electric IEP's with 67's hauling on the few trains a day to Aberdeen and the single train to Inverness from Edinburgh, and also one from Leeds for the return Harrogate train. The Lincoln service I would give to Grand Central to operate to save any micro-fleets. On the GWML, HST's would soldier on as is already going to happen, with Bi-mode IEP's taking over the other services necessary in the Cotswolds. That's just my take on it.

 

[sprinterguy]

I would have had IC225s loco-swaping at Edinburgh too, but they are also needed on Great Western as the only push-pull 140mph stock we have. There aren't enough 225s for both routes so if you left them on East Coast you would still need IEP for Great Western's Swansea, Cheltenham and Weston-Super-Mare routes (therefore restricting electrification because of the cost of clearing for 26m coaches (I've heard a tunnel around about Narberth will need widening if IEP is to go down there, which is going to be expensive and Paddington to Cardiff/Swansea is a long way to run a bi-mode Voyager or a diesel (Intercity 125) under the wires)). The way I suggested, you only have 125s under wires between Weston-Super-Mare and Bristol and between Newbury/Reading and Paddington. You only have bi-modes (for Costswold line) under the wires between Oxford and Paddington, if you could attach a dragging loco at Oxford I'd use EMUs instead (perhaps a follow on order of 395s, with end doors rather than 1/3 2/3 ???).

If IC125s can be life-extended to make it to 60 years old, then so can 158s. That would take them to 2049. Good thing too, in my opinion they are irreplaceable. The more recent units built to do the job of 158s (eg. 175s) are ridiculously overweight. Rural lines need something really lightweight to minimise track wear and with the best possible fuel economy to keep costs down, and being lightweight Sprinters are great. In other words, 158s are to a rural line what an Intercity 125 is for a non-electrified Intercity route, totally brilliant. Hopefully by the time they are replaced there will have been a lot of electrification and thinking will have moved on to allow a replacement to be built which isn’t any heavier than Sprinters.

Given electrics are supposed to have a longer lifespan than diesels I think we can give Intercity 225s 65 years, taking them beyond 2050. I sure hope somebody fits regenerative breaking to the 91s, that would make them very efficient indeed (as it is they are about as efficient as Pendolinos, which do have regenerative breaking).

158s aren’t suitable for rural lines, IMO: Their acceleration is too slow for regular start-stop routes, and their internal arrangement isn’t really geared towards carrying a large amount of luggage or large items such as bikes which are so much a feature of the rural routes favoured by tourists. Plus they must surely be more expensive to maintain than a basic, no frills 150, with larger engines and air con, etc. I would be quite happy to see Pacers replaced on rural services by 150s (There is a very similar total number of 150s to the total number of Pacers), supplemented by 153s and 156s, through investment in new stock or electrification on the commuter routes currently operated by 150s, but once the Sprinters of classes 150, 153 and 156 become completely life expired then new stock for the rural routes will have to be considered.

I would really hope that Scotrail have electrification to Aberdeen in their medium to long term plans. Once the HSTs are withdrawn, it would be a lot simpler if much of the need for bi-mode on the ECML was removed with the OHLE running all the way through to Aberdeen. For as long as the Sleeper trains exist, which IMO is dubious once the mark 3s are in need of withdrawal, there is a diesel loco available at Inverness for drags of the London-Inverness train north of Edinburgh, or Perth which is as far as I can see electrification ever reaching on the Highland main line. Modify a couple of 67s with Dellners, and they can make better use of themselves by hauling the Sleeper during the night and the London service during the day.

With a little bit of infill electrification, such as Leeds to Colton Junction, and transferral of the remaining stretches of diesel operation to an open access operator, such as the Lincoln service, all East Coast would need would be a squadron fleet of about forty all electric IEP trains to replace both the HSTs and 225s.

With all these proposals of life extending various train types, it’s starting to look like some of the trains of a similar vintage to me (I'm a child of the Sprinterisation era) are going to be keeping going when I’m into hip replacement and Zimmer frame territory! The prospect of stretching out the life span of top flight Intercity trains to anything up to sixty years of doing the same duties they always have done is simply ridiculous, and shows the current organisation of the rail industry for the shambles it is.