IEP Construction Progress

[RichmondCommu]

WIFI playing up!

 

[asylumxl]

Comments from whom ? Armchair train operators ? Or people in the industry ? A statement on here doesn't make it a fact, it's a comment, just as my posts are comments. However, there appears to be little basis from industry insiders for the suggestion that Class 91's are doomed.

Considering they have not attempted to add a second pantograph to other 91s to increase reliability/redundancy it doesn't bode well for their future. A substantial amount of reinforcement was required to fit the second pantograph which does not come cheaply.

The ROSCOs have hinted that they are looking at ordering replacement locomotives. It seems to me that it goes without saying that the ROSCOs would be tight lipped about the certainty of such an order as they wish to extract maximum profit out of the stock they already have.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Clear ? Nope, it confirms that there are 24 trains per hour - you appear to be going way off thread here in that my suggestion was a gradual roll out of electric services as wires stretched north, given that Leicester is a key mid-point on MML, a transition between diesel and electric will lead to timetable services, fitting in one extra service isn't going to be difficult.

Hang on a minute, you have previously suggested that there would be ample room for an additional two services to Leicester on top of the existing timetable!

 

[Haydn1971]

That's kinda my thinking Asylum, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it, the 91's work pretty well with the Mk4's why try to change that on a set that has little life left in it post introduction of the 800/801's

 

[RichmondCommu]

At risk of becoming tedious, do we have an alternative solution that's proven to work now ? No ! It's easy to say solutions can be engineered, but the reality is quite different... For example the. 140mph trains we have... Oh, wait... That didn't work out did it

On what basis do you suggest that a ROSCO would buy a fleet of locomotives without checking that they were suitable for any planned work? Do you really think that a ROSCO would be that naive because that is what you appear to be suggesting.

 

[asylumxl]

That's kinda my thinking Asylum, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it, the 91's work pretty well with the Mk4's why try to change that on a set that has little life left in it post introduction of the 800/801's

As far as I'm aware it was done in an attempt to try and increase the reliability of the fleet and make the 91+refurbished MK4s stack up better in comparison to other possible future rolling stock (Pendolinos/IEP). Unfortunately it seems it hasn't been successful.

Personally I think the 91s are approaching the end of their lifetime and should be slowly phased out. The MK4s on the other hand could be useful on the GEML and such.

 

[Haydn1971]

Hang on a minute, you have previously suggested that there would be ample room for an additional two services to Leicester on top of the existing timetable!

As much as I'd love to sit here all night splitting hairs with you, I've work in the morning... Let's remember one thing, the forum is a hobby, I've come here for healthy chat and interesting discussion, rather than to have my throat ripped out by someone who clearly just wants to argue rather than offer any form of objective discussion with someone who works in the transportation industry (me) and regularly gets into discussions with people pulling the strings - I'm no expert, more a knowledgable outsider with an interest.

Sleep tight !

 

[jimm]

Wouldn't the same be true of IEP? And if not, wouldn't the reduced flexibility at times of disruption be a pain (although we have to accept some reduced flexibility since not all routes would be electrified and it'd be madness to have a bi-mode only fleet running under the wires alot of the time)?

I'm convinced that 5-car sets would only be appropriate for a small subset of off-peak and contra-peak services. On others, it might be quiet at Cheltenham or Worcester but you'd be wishing you had at least 7 coaches after Reading. If you can form a small number of diagrams which contain only those services, then a very small number of 5-car sets to cover those diagrams might be appropriate (then again, the sparks effect might put paid to that within a few years).

You're convinced of all sorts of things but others of us disagree - like what TransPennine needs is end door stock - not on your life it isn't. A Class 444-alike is not the answer to life, the universe and everything.

As you really ought to know by now, the point of five-car IEP sets is to give flexibility throughout the day, running five-car on quieter jobs, with the ability to go to 2x5 formations at busier times or on busier parts of the journey like... let's try it again - London-Oxford and London-Swindon. Got that? No, probably not...

Well if things go tits up, instead of what happens now and using the first available HST at Paddington to run the next service. Some services would be caped (ie the 2 fast Bristols which are mostly 5 car) and used to keep everything else moving. Of course, due to the mix of 5-Car Bi Modes and 9 car full electrics, it will be a nightmare, with a lot more cancellations and short forms.

Things are a lot less likely to go tits up with IEP than HST though. The target miles per casualty is 60,000 and the Class 395s are achieving 50,000-plus mpc at the moment. Not sure what FGW's HSTs are doing these days, but not that long ago it was about 10,000mpc.

So might I suggest you reserve judgment until an IEP actually turns a wheel on what will by then be a modernised GWML, with new signals, Reading flyover, etc, so rather less chance of infrastructure-linked disruption as well.

 

[Rhydgaled]

you've used these services, I've used these services, doesn't seem that Rhydgaled has

I'm not a regular user of TPE, but I've used them between Manchester and York (for National Railway Museum) a few times.

That assumes that Eversholt feel that the Class 91's are unfit for further use - if you've evidence for that, perhaps you could share.

There is evidence to support both sides of the argument. Eversholt were planning a refurbishment of the IC225 fleet, including the class 91s, and even produced a demonstrator class 91 with duplex pantograph (which was one aspect of the proposed refurb). The fact that they would go to the lengths of producing a duplex-pantograph demonstrator, I believe, supports my argument that the 91s have at least 10 years life left in them after 2020, provided a suitable home for them is found.

my point is that we don't actually have a garunteed working solution alternative for the Class 91's - people have suggested Traxx, but what evidence is there that it will perform well with the Mk4 carriages.

And the evidence for the other side of the argument is that Eversholt have (or had) an option on the table for replacing 91s with TraXX locos.

I think they were leaving it up to the new East Coast TOC to select whether they wanted to select the cheap option (class 91 refurb) or the expensive option (TraXX).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Considering they have not attempted to add a second pantograph to other 91s to increase reliability/redundancy it doesn't bode well for their future.

As I understand it, the current duplex pantograph 91 is a prototype of a particular aspect of the proposed refurb program. When exactlly was it introduced? I don't think it has been arround that long for the benifits to be monitored to determine whether it was worthwhile to include it in the full refurbishment. Also, Eversholt are hardly likely to commit to the refurb program until they have secured a future use for the 91s, and given the DfT's decision to replace them on the ECML that is looking very unlikely.

 

[222001]

Says who ? As pointed out above, a quick Google suggests acceleration of a 225 set and a Voyager are similar in terms of reaching 125mph

I know a 222 is 2 minutes 50 seconds (ish) to 110 mph. I think the main thing to remember here is that they have a very high off the mark acceleration - they can get to 60mph in about 50-60 seconds which helps a lot. However they do slow down a lot in the 100-125 area and it can take them quite a while to get between these speeds.

 

[asylumxl]

IAs I understand it, the current duplex pantograph 91 is a prototype of a particular aspect of the proposed refurb program. When exactlly was it introduced? I don't think it has been arround that long for the benifits to be monitored to determine whether it was worthwhile to include it in the full refurbishment. Also, Eversholt are hardly likely to commit to the refurb program until they have secured a future use for the 91s, and given the DfT's decision to replace them on the ECML that is looking very unlikely.

And wasn't that the entire point of what I said? They won't make any turther changes unless their is guaranteed use of the stock. You've just said the same thing in my opinion in another way.

 

[Rhydgaled]

And wasn't that the entire point of what I said? They won't make any turther changes unless their is guaranteed use of the stock. You've just said the same thing in my opinion in another way.

Sorry, I thought you were using it to suggest that 91s would be life expired in 2020, which I very much doubt would be the case.

 

[asylumxl]

Sorry, I thought you were using it to suggest that 91s would be life expired in 2020, which I very much doubt would be the case.

No worries. More just saying that their future is not looking bright at the moment.

I'd be very surprised if one doesn't end up in the NRM to be honest. Could be a good draw for tours down the ECML for future generations.

 

[anthony263]

The problem with the class 91's is not really the bodywork on the loco's but some of the onboard equipment/systems is starting to get dated and unreliable.

Of course the 91's could be overhauked/refurbished with new modern equipment just like the class 43's have had new engines but the costs be be so high that it might be far better to just purchase brand new locomotives

 

[Rhydgaled]

Of course the 91's could be overhauked/refurbished with new modern equipment just like the class 43's have had new engines but the costs be be so high that it might be far better to just purchase brand new locomotives

That's not the case, Eversholt were presenting the class 91 refurbishment as the cheaper option than replacing them with new locomotives. The real problem is DfT with two fleets of trains (IEP with rapid-acceleration and the 91-powered IC225s with sluggish acceleration) has decided to put the rapid-acceleration trains on the only routes which can manage with sluggish acceleration thanks to high top speeds.

 

[SkinnyDave]

That's not the case, Eversholt were presenting the class 91 refurbishment as the cheaper option than replacing them with new locomotives. The real problem is DfT with two fleets of trains (IEP with rapid-acceleration and the 91-powered IC225s with sluggish acceleration) has decided to put the rapid-acceleration trains on the only routes which can manage with sluggish acceleration thanks to high top speeds.

I think people need to get over the grieving process that HSTs and 91s etc will soon be history..
IEP is now the future of the EC franchise
Cost and procurement is a separate argument

 

[NotATrainspott]

The 91s aren't ever going to see massive improvements from a refurb unless they replace the DC motors with AC ones. Such a change in traction package makes perfect sense for EMUs but it makes little sense for a locomotive.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I think people need to get over the grieving process that HSTs and 91s etc will soon be history..
IEP is now the future of the EC franchise

The way I see it:

• The class 43 power cars from the IC125s, and probably the carriages (primarily becuase of the slam doors) are old enough to be history
• IC225s (including the class 91s) are not old enough to be history
• Retaining the IC225s on the East Coast increases the UK's train fleet by 270 carriages (assuming that if they are retired from East Coast the 91s will be scrapped and the mrk4s used to scrap mrk3s which otherwise would have been retained or replaced by brand new stock). Basically, that there are far more useful purposes the 270 IEP carriages could be put to rather than scrapping 91s.

 

[Haydn1971]

Retaining the IC225s on the East Coast increases the UK's train fleet by 270 carriages (assuming that if they are retired from East Coast the 91s will be scrapped and the mrk4s used to scrap mrk3s which otherwise would have been retained or replaced by brand new stock). Basically, that there are far more useful purposes the 270 IEP carriages could be put to rather than scrapping 91s.

That's something I'd agree with, I'm still mindful of an election and a change of heart come 2015/16

 

[tbtc]

I think people need to get over the grieving process that HSTs and 91s etc will soon be history..
IEP is now the future of the EC franchise
Cost and procurement is a separate argument

Can't argue

The way I see it:

• The class 43 power cars from the IC125s, and probably the carriages (primarily becuase of the slam doors) are old enough to be history
  [*]IC225s (including the class 91s) are not old enough to be history
• Retaining the IC225s on the East Coast increases the UK's train fleet by 270 carriages (assuming that if they are retired from East Coast the 91s will be scrapped and the mrk4s used to scrap mrk3s which otherwise would have been retained or replaced by brand new stock). Basically, that there are far more useful purposes the 270 IEP carriages could be put to rather than scrapping 91s.

What do you mean "not old enough to be history"? They'll have had nearly thirty years (by the time the final ECML IEP comes along to replace them) - Deltics only lasted on the ECML for around twenty years.

Since we are clearly struggling to find things to keep the 91s busy with until they reach the magical thirty years old, we might as well get rid.

Hmm, wait a minute, would the number of Mk4 rakes be enough to run all Devon/Cornwall services from Paddington?

 

[RichmondCommu]

As much as I'd love to sit here all night splitting hairs with you, I've work in the morning... Let's remember one thing, the forum is a hobby, I've come here for healthy chat and interesting discussion, rather than to have my throat ripped out by someone who clearly just wants to argue rather than offer any form of objective discussion with someone who works in the transportation industry (me) and regularly gets into discussions with people pulling the strings - I'm no expert, more a knowledgeable outsider with an interest.

Sleep tight !

If you decide to respond to a members post with "you have no point at all" then you should expect to receive a robust response! If you had suggested anything sensible to run on the MML before electrification is completed then we might have found some common ground. The fact is that you haven't and if you post something on this forum that I don't agree with I'll tell you!

I've never worked in the transport sector, indeed for most of my working life I've worked for an investment bank. However I've not read anything on this forum to suggest that you know anything more about the railway network than I do. People pulling strings sounds like a cheap puppet show but there are plenty of highly knowledgeable posters on here who have lots of interesting stuff to share. Some work in the rail industry, some don't.

Perhaps if you were prepared to get off your high horse we might be able to get on a little better.

 

[anthony263]

According to Tony Miles over on WNXX some of the seating for the IEP will be displayed at Bristol TM. I can say those who have seen them are not too impressed.

There are a few interesting comments about the cabs of the class 800/801 units and the view out of the cab window

 

[RichmondCommu]

Can't argue



What do you mean "not old enough to be history"? They'll have had nearly thirty years (by the time the final ECML IEP comes along to replace them) - Deltics only lasted on the ECML for around twenty years.

Since we are clearly struggling to find things to keep the 91s busy with until they reach the magical thirty years old, we might as well get rid.

Hmm, wait a minute, would the number of Mk4 rakes be enough to run all Devon/Cornwall services from Paddington?

Assuming that you're not being facetious this is not a bad suggestion but what could we use to haul them?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

According to Tony Miles over on WNXX some of the seating for the IEP will be displayed at Bristol TM. I can say those who have seen them are not too impressed.

In what way?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

According to Tony Miles over on WNXX some of the seating for the IEP will be displayed at Bristol TM. I can say those who have seen them are not too impressed.

In what way?

 

[Manchester77]

junglejames wrote:
Ah, i thought you had looked around it. Rubbish forward view was what i heard. As bad as a Deltic. So not exactly very good for shunting.

Off wnxx about the view

 

[TheGrew]

Assuming that you're not being facetious this is not a bad suggestion but what could we use to haul them?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


In what way?

Class 68/88? Main issue would be the slower acceleration and top speed compared with a hst set though.

 

[Manchester77]

About the seats tony miles said:
Bumped into a number of senior FGW managers by accident yesterday and raised the "IEP Seats" issue. Essentially DfT is deciding - don't believe DfT stuff about being left to operators to decide, the operators can decide on the colour of the cloth.... BUT they said the IEP seats will be on display and available for testing by the public very soon (at Bristol TM I think they said) and feedback to DfT will be invited. I suggest as many as possible get there an deliver their feedback but also try to advise local press and get them to go along and take a look. If any press are interested get them to talk to someone like Roger Ford who can debunk any DfT "spin" about it being left to the operators before they run a story.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Class 68/88? Main issue would be the slower acceleration and top speed compared with a hst set though.

Well that’s the problem! With regard to Devon and Cornwall I think the only workable solution is to order more IEP bi-modes. In some ways it’s a bit of a shame as the mk4's should have at least another decade in them but the problem is we have nothing to haul them once the wires finish.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

About the seats tony miles said:
Bumped into a number of senior FGW managers by accident yesterday and raised the "IEP Seats" issue. Essentially DfT is deciding - don't believe DfT stuff about being left to operators to decide, the operators can decide on the colour of the cloth.... BUT they said the IEP seats will be on display and available for testing by the public very soon (at Bristol TM I think they said) and feedback to DfT will be invited. I suggest as many as possible get there an deliver their feedback but also try to advise local press and get them to go along and take a look. If any press are interested get them to talk to someone like Roger Ford who can debunk any DfT "spin" about it being left to the operators before they run a story.

Thanks for this. However there is nothing here that describes the seating arrangements, or why people might have an issue with them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

junglejames wrote:
Ah, i thought you had looked around it. Rubbish forward view was what i heard. As bad as a Deltic. So not exactly very good for shunting.

Off wnxx about the view

How much shunting is a IEP expected to do?

 

[tbtc]

Assuming that you're not being facetious this is not a bad suggestion but what could we use to haul them?

I'm struggling to find uses for 91s - hence the previous suggestions of routes where they could do an okay job for maybe five years (without being a long term solution) - but if we accept that the locos themselves are past it then the Mk4s would be enough to replace the remaining Mk3s on FGW.

The engines in the Class 43s are pretty young, so could they continue in operation (but with Mk4s between the power cars instead of Mk3s)? Genuine question btw.

My logic being that the HSTs have young engines with knackered coaches whilst the 225s have superfluous locos with decent coaches. Take the best of both, and...

 

[asylumxl]

junglejames wrote:
Ah, i thought you had looked around it. Rubbish forward view was what i heard. As bad as a Deltic. So not exactly very good for shunting.

Off wnxx about the view

JungleJames. The unrivaled fountain of all railway knowledge. The all knowing, all seeing omnipotent guru of transport.

Oh no wait, he's the guy who makes entire threads about the travesty of losing a few cm of legroom...

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm struggling to find uses for 91s - hence the previous suggestions of routes where they could do an okay job for maybe five years (without being a long term solution) - but if we accept that the locos themselves are past it then the Mk4s would be enough to replace the remaining Mk3s on FGW.

The engines in the Class 43s are pretty young, so could they continue in operation (but with Mk4s between the power cars instead of Mk3s)? Genuine question btw.

My logic being that the HSTs have young engines with knackered coaches whilst the 225s have superfluous locos with decent coaches. Take the best of both, and...

Fair enough! My only issue with the power cars would perhaps be their structural integrity given that pretty much everything else appears to have been replaced! I'm assuming here that it's still possible to obtain brand new MTU's if necessary?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

JungleJames. The unrivaled fountain of all railway knowledge. The all knowing, all seeing omnipotent guru of transport.

Oh no wait, he's the guy who makes entire threads about the travesty of losing a few cm of legroom...

Oh for a 'like' button!