IEP Construction Progress

[YorkshireBear]

Are you seriously arguing that we're so short of metal that we need to hang on to trains we no longer need or want economically because metal is that short of supply?

If it was, we wouldn't be able to afford new trains. In the grand scheme of things, we'll waste a lot more resources trying to keep them going.

Im sure he feels that strongly that he still has 1988 car.

Metal gets recycled so i don't understand what his problem is.

The HSTs are almost life expired they cannot go on forever as much as we want them to.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Im sure he feels that strongly that he still has 1988 car.

Metal gets recycled so i don't understand what his problem is.

The HSTs are almost life expired they cannot go on forever as much as we want them to.

He's talking about the 91s I think. The point still stands, though - if it's more economical to scrap them, then scrap them. I assume that some organisations will pay to preserve a few (not least the NRM), but aside from that if we can afford to cut costs and run more trains by buying new ones then we should.

If there's a new home they can go to that's great too, but I'm doubtful.

 

[OxtedL]

I don't disagree with that. What I'm saying is there is so little running away from the wires (and lots of running under them) on the East Coast franchise that I don't think there's enough off-wire services to warrant a diesel or bi-mode fleet, just an all-electric one.

If we're talking about dragging electric trains with special locos, the sums that someone at the DfT and/or Treasury was doing in 2012 suggested that bi-mode was more efficient overall to the tune of £200m:

Introducing the bi-mode option for the Intercity Express Programme is estimated to save around £200 million (net present value) as compared to introducing a fleet of all-electric trains to be coupled to a diesel locomotive beyond the electrified sections of the railway.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/4-5-billion-investment-in-new-trains-creates-new-jobs

Whilst a great example of a government figure you can look at for quite some time wondering what the heck it means and how they calculated it, I'm more willing to trust this than your speculation.

Therefore, I would suggest that the majority of passengers would have a worse chance of getting a seat out of Paddington with a 2x5-car than with a single 9-car set.

As a couple of train managers on the forum have pointed out over the years, people are really bad at spreading themselves down the train anyway at Paddington - the problem is people not walking down the platform and rarely walking down the train. Not being able to walk down the train will only impact a small number of people - those who know there will be spare seats in the front of the train, but who once again we can assume turned up at the last minute and couldn't walk down the platform.

Again, it's not as big an issue as you're making out. The problems with portion working are well understood, but so are the benefits.

 

[Dave1987]

He's talking about the 91s I think. The point still stands, though - if it's more economical to scrap them, then scrap them. I assume that some organisations will pay to preserve a few (not least the NRM), but aside from that if we can afford to cut costs and run more trains by buying new ones then we should.

If there's a new home they can go to that's great too, but I'm doubtful.

Why scrap trains that are not life expired?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that the branches will get wired, but bi-mode gives us the luxury of being able to focus resources on other areas with better cost/benefit ratios in the meantime (e.g. after wiring to Swansea on the GWML we could target branches off the ECML/ MML/ WCML like Hull, Matlock and Chester before we come back to tackle Swansea to Carmarthen).

Bi-mode means not having to do everything at once.

Bi-modes gives them the opportunity to delay electrification as much as they want.

At the end of the day though the order has been signed, bi-modes will happen. I just hope they are an unmitigated failure so no more are built.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Bi-modes gives them the opportunity to delay electrification as much as they want.

At the end of the day though the order has been signed, bi-modes will happen. I just hope they are an unmitigated failure so no more are built.

Rather childish of you.

It does give them an opportunity to delay electrification. On the routes they operate that is.

How exactly are IEP going to delay electrification in the NW? Or the Midlands? DO you think NR have unlimited resources?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Why scrap trains that are not life expired?

Because you don't keep things doing until they're life-expired if it's cheaper not to. Is that not more economical? I really don't understand the reasoning to keep things going until they're clapped-out even when it's cheaper to replace them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rather childish of you.

It does give them an opportunity to delay electrification. On the routes they operate that is.

How exactly are IEP going to delay electrification in the NW? Or the Midlands? DO you think NR have unlimited resources?

If anything, it means we might see lines away from the IEPs get pushed up the priority list for CP6, which I think would be very welcome in certain parts of the country.

Plus I think that bi-mode will encourage electrification down to Exeter or even Plymouth, as it would mean that new electric IEPs could be bought and the bi-modes cascaded to the Cornish routes, with the remaining HSTs scrapped/sent into preservation.

 

[YorkshireBear]

If anything, it means we might see lines away from the IEPs get pushed up the priority list for CP6, which I think would be very welcome in certain parts of the country.

Plus I think that bi-mode will encourage electrification down to Exeter or even Plymouth, as it would mean that new electric IEPs could be bought and the bi-modes cascaded to the Cornish routes, with the remaining HSTs scrapped/sent into preservation.

Exactly i agree with you. As has been said the lease on the diesel engines is 10 years so we can come back in CP7 and do a little bit more wiring in this area. In between we can go to other areas of country.

 

[transmanche]

Plus I think that bi-mode will encourage electrification down to Exeter or even Plymouth, as it would mean that new electric IEPs could be bought and the bi-modes cascaded to the Cornish routes, with the remaining HSTs scrapped/sent into preservation.

That's a very important point that deserves highlighting.

I see the potential for bi-modes to be shuffled around the country, as electrification progresses.

 

[HSTEd]

Released figures from the DfT shows that the construction cost quoted by Agility trains for IEP carriages differs between the two variants by a few percent at most.

It would be cheaper to forget the electrification of the minor routes and simply buy more IEP bi-modes in place of those posited electrics.

 

[Dave1987]

Because you don't keep things doing until they're life-expired if it's cheaper not to. Is that not more economical? I really don't understand the reasoning to keep things going until they're clapped-out even when it's cheaper to replace them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So what's the point in building a trains to last for 40 years if you are go replace and scrap them after 10 years?

 

[transmanche]

So what's the point in building a trains to last for 40 years if you are go replace and scrap them after 10 years?

I've forgotten if it's HSTs or 91s that are specifically under discussion here; but it's safe to say that both types have a fair bit more than 10 years in frontline service.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I've forgotten if it's HSTs or 91s that are specifically under discussion here; but it's safe to say that both types have a fair bit more than 10 years in frontline service.

HSTs are nearly 40 years old aren't they? Likely more when replaced. The 91s will be 28 when replaced and they are not exactly in good nick. And definitely are not very reliable in the grand scheme of things.

 

[All Line Rover]

Today I saw a display of seats at Kings Cross. There were two almost identical looking seats for each class of travel, and an attendant asking people to give feedback and complete a survey about their travel habits.

Am I right in thinking that these prototype seats are for the new IEP trains?

I must say that the seats were rather firm - particularly in comparison to the existing East Cast First Class seats. They remind me of Standard Class on a Pendolino. It's hard to give an opinion on the seats as sitting in them for a couple of minutes doesn't give one the opportunity to decide whether they would be incredibly uncomfortable or actually excellent for one's posture on a multiple hour journey.

 

[dosxuk]

So what's the point in building a trains to last for 40 years if you are go replace and scrap them after 10 years?

If it's more expensive to run the 10 year old train than it costs to buy a new one and run that - what reason is there to keep the 10 year old train? It's costing money that could otherwise be spent on other things.

Just because a vehicle could last 40 years doesn't mean the owners should be forced to run it that long before they can replace it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So what's the point in building a trains to last for 40 years if you are go replace and scrap them after 10 years?

It doesn't matter what we did when we built them; the fact is that if the economics stack up one way or the other then we might as well go with what gets the best bang for the buck.

To answer your question, though: there's no way we can predict how things will be politically in 30 or 40 years' time with regards to the railways. We might as well build things to last as long as possible so long as it doesn't cost all that much more.

 

[47802]

If it's more expensive to run the 10 year old train than it costs to buy a new one and run that - what reason is there to keep the 10 year old train? It's costing money that could otherwise be spent on other things.

Just because a vehicle could last 40 years doesn't mean the owners should be forced to run it that long before they can replace it.

Indeed I imagine TFL could have got another 10 years out of their D78 stock but clearly they decided it made much more sense to replace all of the Surface stock with a new standardised fleet.

East coast wise as far as I'm concerned a hybrid fleet is very much required, given the lack of electrified diversionary routes on this line and likely to remain so for a long time, Loco Haulage is expensive so an all electric fleet would be more bustitution on diversions, and such as Harrogate might loose its through service pending Electrification if and when that happens.

And yes I spent 4.5 hours stuck on a 91 which pulled the overheads down, so any Electric Train that could slowly move itself to the nearest station or at least keep the aircon running is good in my book.

In any case we seem to be getting off the point IEP is coming and this meant to be about Construction Progress.

 

[Dave1987]

I'm clearly very outnumbered by bi-mode supporters here so will leave it there.....

 

[dosxuk]

I'm clearly very outnumbered by bi-mode supporters here so will leave it there.....

It nothing to do with being a bi-mode supporter, it's just simple economics.

The same argument has gotten the MML electrified - it worked out cheaper in the BCA to do the upgrade and replace the rolling stock than to continue to run the virtually brand new (at the time) 222's for their expected lifespans. In fact, the same decisions happen constantly, in all walks of life.

 

[Rhydgaled]

God forbid you try to touch their through services and replace it with a connecting diesel. This then means that you either have to run a diesel service under the wires (and continue to operate a diesel mainline fleet alongside your shiny new electric trains) or manage loco dragged services; given that all of the TOCs who did this have since stopped one can infer that it's more hassle than it's worth.

Except that Virgin proposed (and I believe are still proposing) to replace Voyagers with new EMUs (designed to reduce the hassle of dragging them), not with bi-modes.

Will it mean that some branches that would have probably been electrified sooner are left unwired for longer? Almost certainly, yes. But the electrification crews who would've been doing those branches will instead be moved on to the next major scheme instead of spending valuable time on 1tp2h or less branch services

The thing is that two of the IEP Great Western bi-mode routes are planned to have an hourly (or close to that) service. An hourly service with a 125mph Intercity train is a very different kettle of fish to a branch line with a 2-car sprinter every two hours.

If we're talking about dragging electric trains with special locos, the sums that someone at the DfT and/or Treasury was doing in 2012 suggested that bi-mode was more efficient overall to the tune of £200m:

For the ECML, I'm talking about normal locos, with special couplers if necessary, not special locos. Assuming Lincoln is the only ICEC route remaining off-wire in 2025 you'd need just one loco diagram in England and a very small number added to the highland sleeper pool for the East Coast Scottish runs. Alternatively you could go the bi-mode route and share the pool of 13 (if I recall correctly) East Coast bi-modes with the MML TOC, who also are likely to have a few off-wire services. But, on it's own, ICEC shouldn't need a diesel fleet. As for that £200m, most of it is probably time savings over attaching/detaching the drag loco, which DaFT thought would take far longer than it actually would.

I think that bi-mode will encourage electrification down to Exeter or even Plymouth, as it would mean that new electric IEPs could be bought and the bi-modes cascaded to the Cornish routes, with the remaining HSTs scrapped/sent into preservation.

If only DaFT were that clever. If the 14x bi-mode diagrams for Westbury, Weston-Super-Mare and Cheltenham Spa were all 9-car, and you repurpose the IC225 replacment IEP fleet, you could:

1. Defer introduction of the 9-car electrics orriginally earmarked for IC225 replacment
2. Abort heavy overhaul on IC125 fleet, instead granting a 5-year TSI-PRM derrogation
3. Electrify Bedwyn - Westbury and Taunton-Plymouth
4. Electrify Bristol - Weston-Super-Mare and Swindon - Cheltenham
5. Introduce the 9-car IEP electrics deffered in 1. to cascade the 14x 9-car bi-modes mentioned earlier to the PAD - Plymouth/Penzance route
6. If you need a few more than 14 bi-modes for that, replace East Coast's with more of the electrics ordered for IC225 replacement

HSTs are nearly 40 years old aren't they? Likely more when replaced. The 91s will be 28 when replaced and they are not exactly in good nick. And definitely are not very reliable in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, IC125s old enough to replace but 91s at 28yrs old would be too soon. They may not in be good nick now but that's probably because they have a refurbishment due soon, which Eversholt was planning before DaFT signed the death warrant for those perfectly good locos.

I'm clearly very outnumbered by bi-mode supporters here so will leave it there.....

In my view the question should not be "is bi-mode good or bad?" but "where is bi-mode good and where is it bad?". Generally, where it would be good I believe is regional services, rather than INTERCITY, but there are a small number of exceptions on the FirstGW network (well, maybe just one actually).

 

[TheKnightWho]

If only DaFT were that clever. If the 14x bi-mode diagrams for Westbury, Weston-Super-Mare and Cheltenham Spa were all 9-car, and you repurpose the IC225 replacment IEP fleet, you could:

1. Defer introduction of the 9-car electrics orriginally earmarked for IC225 replacment
2. Abort heavy overhaul on IC125 fleet, instead granting a 5-year TSI-PRM derrogation
3. Electrify Bedwyn - Westbury and Taunton-Plymouth
4. Electrify Bristol - Weston-Super-Mare and Swindon - Cheltenham
5. Introduce the 9-car IEP electrics deffered in 1. to cascade the 14x 9-car bi-modes mentioned earlier to the PAD - Plymouth/Penzance route
6. If you need a few more than 14 bi-modes for that, replace East Coast's with more of the electrics ordered for IC225 replacement

All of which is expensive and rather unnecessary right now. Plus you'll find the 91s getting in the way of the faster IEPs.

That's to say nothing of the fact that the reason we don't see loco-haulage in mainline use nowadays is simply because it a) is a hassle, and takes time which reduces passenger numbers on long-distance, b) performs worse than a bi-mode will, and c) will be almost as expensive, if not moreso.

 

[tbtc]

At the end of the day though the order has been signed, bi-modes will happen. I just hope they are an unmitigated failure so no more are built.

Always look on the bright side of life, eh?

That's a very important point that deserves highlighting.

I see the potential for bi-modes to be shuffled around the country, as electrification progresses.

+1.

Wire up routes like Swindon to Gloucester/ Cheltenham or Selby to Hull or Leeds to Harrogate and you can move the bi-modes onto XC (whilst wholly electric trains move on to the Gloucester/ Hull services), since XC won't be ready for fully electric trains for many years.

In any case we seem to be getting off the point IEP is coming and this meant to be about Construction Progress.

Good point

Except that Virgin proposed (and I believe are still proposing) to replace Voyagers with new EMUs (designed to reduce the hassle of dragging them), not with bi-modes

...because IEP won't tilt - which means it could only do 125mph on the WCML - and that wouldn't work with Virgin's timetables.

Building tilting IEP (with narrower bodies etc) would mean going back to the drawing board, and therefore be quite expensive for a small fleet.

For the ECML, I'm talking about normal locos, with special couplers if necessary, not special locos. Assuming Lincoln is the only ICEC route remaining off-wire in 2025 you'd need just one loco diagram in England and a very small number added to the highland sleeper pool for the East Coast Scottish runs

That assumes that we can keep lots of HSTs going until 2025.

And you need to remember that the Inverness/ Aberdeen diagrams involve hundreds of miles of running under the wires - it may be a small number of diagrams, but it means a lot more waste than a few trips from Oxford to London under the wires

Yes, IC125s old enough to replace but 91s at 28yrs old would be too soon. They may not in be good nick now but that's probably because they have a refurbishment due soon, which Eversholt was planning before DaFT signed the death warrant for those perfectly good locos

Which is it? They are perfectly good, or they aren't in good nick?

If they need a lot of money spending on them to refurbish them to last a few more years then that cost needs to be taken against the cost of a brand new train.

I don't know if you drive but you get to a stage where the cost of keeping a car on the road becomes uneconomical - its cheaper to buy a new vehicle rather than keep patching it up for a few more months.

(and if you can't recycle metals then did Peppa Pig lie to me about recycling her old cans?)

 

[jimm]

Whatever happened to your off-peak loadings and contra-peak loadings? Can you, or can you not, diagram units so they are on contra-peak or off-peak workings all day everyday? If you can ensure some diagrams are quieter throughout, then you can use trains with the same capacity as the current ones on the quieter diagrams and 9-car units on the busier diagrams. If not, and every diagram contains at least one peak working, then everything probably does need to be 9-car.

What do you mean what happened to them? Look up the diagrams for FGW 180s, they are on here somewhere, though there have been a few tweaks lately, such as an early-morning start on a Newbury-London run. When you have those diagrams, get a Cotswold Line timetable - that's East 4 - and see what trains the 180s work on that timetable. Then you will see how you can use a five-car set through the day.

Even then, I'm sure it won't convince you of anything at all, since your 'opinions' obviously outweigh my local knowledge or the expertise of the people in FGW's diagramming team, whose job it is to best match the available rolling stock to demand at particular times of the day and at particular stations.

It's just another straw you are clutching at in your antipathy towards IEP.

Compared to a 9-car IEP, the odds of getting a seat on a 2x5-car IEP (10-cars) would be:
Pretty much equal if you have the enterance to the platform between the two units
Worse than the 9-car if the entrance to the platform is at one end of the train and the passenger goes with the flow and boards the nearest unit
Perhaps better than the 9-car if the entrance to the platform is at one end of the train and the passenger boards the far unit, but not if you're using portion working because most of the passengers who don't turn up at the last minute will get in the correct portion.
Therefore, I would suggest that the majority of passengers would have a worse chance of getting a seat out of Paddington with a 2x5-car than with a single 9-car set.

:roll:

Please, no more...

I'm talking about normal locos, with special couplers if necessary, not special locos.

Define a 'normal' locomotive. The Class 67 is optimised for long-distance fast running with few stops on mail trains, not for passenger services with frequent station stops and the short, hard bursts of acceleration and braking that such operation requires.

 

[47802]

Except that Virgin proposed (and I believe are still proposing) to replace Voyagers with new EMUs (designed to reduce the hassle of dragging them), not with bi-modes.

Is that really the especially since virgin have got rid of all their 57's since that proposal, in any case the point I keep making time and time again the West Coast has significantly more electrified diversionary route available than the East Coast, even then I would like to see the Voyagers replaced with bi-modes, although as no current tilt bi-mode exists its probably not very likely.

.

For the ECML, I'm talking about normal locos, with special couplers if necessary, not special locos. Assuming Lincoln is the only ICEC route remaining off-wire in 2025 you'd need just one loco diagram in England and a very small number added to the highland sleeper pool for the East Coast Scottish runs. Alternatively you could go the bi-mode route and share the pool of 13 (if I recall correctly) East Coast bi-modes with the MML TOC, who also are likely to have a few off-wire services. But, on it's own, ICEC shouldn't need a diesel fleet.
.

Couldn't disagree more there is no cert any of the Off Wire routes will be done by 2025, and even if they were should be retained for diversions and possible other off wire destinations.


.

Yes, IC125s old enough to replace but 91s at 28yrs old would be too soon. They may not in be good nick now but that's probably because they have a refurbishment due soon, which Eversholt was planning before DaFT signed the death warrant for those perfectly good locos.
.

Age is almost irrelevant it depends on the overall business case do you not understand the concept of a business case, in any case DFT rightly or wrongly have decided IEP is the better option than IC225 end of.

 

[Rhydgaled]

All of which is expensive and rather unnecessary right now. Plus you'll find the 91s getting in the way of the faster IEPs.

Those IEP carriages to replace the IC225s are rather expensive also, much more useful on the GW giving more passengers a seat and possibly saving power-door fitment on IC125s than replacing IC225s unecessarily. And the IEPs are only faster on acceleration from stations, the top speed is the same. Therefore if you try to diagram IEPs for services with more stops and IC225s on faster services (some are first stop York aren't they?) the difference won't be that great.

Wire up routes like Swindon to Gloucester/ Cheltenham or Selby to Hull or Leeds to Harrogate and you can move the bi-modes onto XC (whilst wholly electric trains move on to the Gloucester/ Hull services), since XC won't be ready for fully electric trains for many years.

Except that XC will probably still have Voyagers (until life-expiry arround 2030ish, maybe later given that lots of other diesel trains seem to be lasting alot longer than 30yrs at the moment) and quite possibly 222s as well once the MML is wired.

...because IEP won't tilt - which means it could only do 125mph on the WCML - and that wouldn't work with Virgin's timetables.

Building tilting IEP (with narrower bodies etc) would mean going back to the drawing board, and therefore be quite expensive for a small fleet.

I didn't say IEP did I? I said bi-mode. Can't Alstom put diesel engines in a new Pendolino? Virgin chose loco-drags over trying to obtain a bi-mode tilting train or sticking with diesels under the wires.

That assumes that we can keep lots of HSTs going until 2025.

No it doesn't, it would only be the West Of England IC125 fleet that they are planning to retain anyway, and I'm suggesting keeping them until 2025 without power-doors rather than extending them for longer with power doors. On East Coast, you just need three loco diagrams in England dragging IEPs instead of one until Hull and Harrogate are wired.

And you need to remember that the Inverness/ Aberdeen diagrams involve hundreds of miles of running under the wires - it may be a small number of diagrams, but it means a lot more waste than a few trips from Oxford to London under the wires

What waste? I'm not suggesting leaving them diesel. The handful of diesel locomotive diagrams in Scotland would come no further south than Edinburgh. A 91 or electric IEP would handle the under-wires part.

If they need a lot of money spending on them to refurbish them to last a few more years then that cost needs to be taken against the cost of a brand new train.

Eversholt were presenting the 91 refurbishment as the cheap option, replacing the 91 with TraXX was their expensive option and replacement of the entire train is more expensive still.

(and if you can't recycle metals then did Peppa Pig lie to me about recycling her old cans?)

Costs energy to recycle the metal though. I'm not saying don't recycle, but make do and mend as long as you can before throwing your stuff in the recycle bin. And do they actually salvage the lot into useful products or does some of the metal end up in anti-bacterial soap?

What do you mean what happened to them? Look up the diagrams for FGW 180s, they are on here somewhere, though there have been a few tweaks lately, such as an early-morning start on a Newbury-London run. When you have those diagrams, get a Cotswold Line timetable - that's East 4 - and see what trains the 180s work on that timetable. Then you will see how you can use a five-car set through the day.

Even then, I'm sure it won't convince you of anything at all, since your 'opinions' obviously outweigh my local knowledge or the expertise of the people in FGW's diagramming team, whose job it is to best match the available rolling stock to demand at particular times of the day and at particular stations.

How many quiet diagrams, which are off-peak/contra-peak all day, are there? There can't be that many or wouldn't FirstGW have a mix of 2+6 and 2+8 IC125s, rather than all 2+8?

Define a 'normal' locomotive. The Class 67 is optimised for long-distance fast running with few stops on mail trains, not for passenger services with frequent station stops and the short, hard bursts of acceleration and braking that such operation requires.

That's why I gave up suggesting loco-drags for the Cotswolds line and accepted bi-mode IEP for that route.

The 67s manage the Aberdeen and Inverness routes on the sleeper don't they? And EC's Hull, Harrogate and Lincoln services don't have all that many stops while away from the wires.

in any case DFT rightly or wrongly have decided IEP is the better option than IC225 end of.

Very wrongly, I am utterly dismayed at their decision to scrap 91s 10 years early and if I can make them change their mind I will.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The 67s manage the Aberdeen and Inverness routes on the sleeper don't they? And EC's Hull, Harrogate and Lincoln services don't have all that many stops while away from the wires.

Very wrongly, I am utterly dismayed at their decision to scrap 91s 10 years early and if I can make them change their mind I will.

Yes they do but with not an awful lot of carriages. Could they haul a 9 car IEP?

They have not said they will be scrapped will you stop saying that. They will be available for other people to use on an significantly increasing electric network.

 

[LexyBoy]

Scenario A: bimodes kill off expansion of electrification on the routes they operate, as there's no incentive for it (no new trains, no improvement in the service)
Scenario B: bimodes enable rolling electrification as there's no/less capex on rolling stock to make benefit from it.

I think we'll have to wait and see what happens. It will depend on how successful IEP is - whether it's employed on other routes (bimode cascades) and how well the bimode design itself works.

 

[47802]

That's why I gave up suggesting loco-drags for the Cotswolds line and accepted bi-mode IEP for that route.

The 67s manage the Aberdeen and Inverness routes on the sleeper don't they? And EC's Hull, Harrogate and Lincoln services don't have all that many stops while away from the wires.

Very wrongly, I am utterly dismayed at their decision to scrap 91s 10 years early and if I can make them change their mind I will.

So we have a standard Intercity Train but you are suggesting 2 different solutions Bi Mode for 1 route and Diesel Dragging for a another!!

As an actual user of the East Coast I welcome IEP as a replacement for the 91's, I welcome the extra seating capacity, the better performance and the ability to run the Aircon in the event of failure. I also welcome Hybrid IEP as train to run to off wire destinations at the drop of a hat, without having to find an expensive loco and crew to do that job.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Scenario A: bimodes kill off expansion of electrification on the routes they operate, as there's no incentive for it (no new trains, no improvement in the service)
Scenario B: bimodes enable rolling electrification as there's no/less capex on rolling stock to make benefit from it.

I think we'll have to wait and see what happens. It will depend on how successful IEP is - whether it's employed on other routes (bimode cascades) and how well the bimode design itself works.

Oh but there is incentive! It's still cheaper for a bi-mode to run off the wires, and it still provides greater flexibility.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So we have a standard Intercity Train but you are suggesting 2 different solutions Bi Mode for 1 route and Diesel Dragging for a another!!

As an actual user of the East Coast I welcome IEP as a replacement for the 91's, I welcome the extra seating capacity, the better performance and the ability to run the Aircon in the event of failure. I also welcome Hybrid IEP as train to run to off wire destinations at the drop of a hat, without having to find an expensive loco and crew to do that job.

I really can't understand the insistence on loco haulage. There is a massive, massive difference in acceleration between a 67 hauling 9 coaches and a high-speed DMU, EDMU or DEMU. Even on journeys which don't have many stops, it's still made a lot worse by the frequent speed-changes seen on lower speed lines. Notably ones like the High Mainline.

Good acceleration is not just necessary for pulling out of stations.

 

[OxtedL]

For the ECML, I'm talking about normal locos, with special couplers if necessary, not special locos. Assuming Lincoln is the only ICEC route remaining off-wire in 2025 you'd need just one loco diagram in England and a very small number added to the highland sleeper pool for the East Coast Scottish runs. Alternatively you could go the bi-mode route and share the pool of 13 (if I recall correctly) East Coast bi-modes with the MML TOC, who also are likely to have a few off-wire services. But, on it's own, ICEC shouldn't need a diesel fleet. As for that £200m, most of it is probably time savings over attaching/detaching the drag loco, which DaFT thought would take far longer than it actually would.

Your persistence in using the term 'DaFT' throughout this thread suggests you don't have the ability to competently contradict their thinking, and is becoming annoying.

Special locos just means locos that are designated to run these passenger services. It's not clear to me whether or not this could be achieved using something we already have, but given we're talking leasing it anyway, I'm not convinced it actually matters.

Whilst it is true that there could be the potential for cost savings by pooling with the sleepers, this is only one or possibly two out of maybe six or seven, so isn't as substantial as you might think, a lot of the cost being the baseline for having any in the first place.(Although it would greatly improve the apparent financial situation of the sleeper.)

Note the £200m must also include GW routes. The extra expense will be all the standard reasons why widespread use of locomotives and coaches is fading out, particularly the higher track wear over these (quite long) sections of route, operational complications from adding/removing locomotives and the need to maintain competencies on a wider range of things.

I didn't say IEP did I? I said bi-mode. Can't Alstom put diesel engines in a new Pendolino? Virgin chose loco-drags over trying to obtain a bi-mode tilting train or sticking with diesels under the wires.

Designing a bi-mode tilting train suffers from the same expense problem as designing a tilting version of IEP. In fact, they must be very nearly equivalent statements, so I view this response as petty, picking up on a very weak technicality, rather than in any way showing the argument to be false (just in case you were wondering ).

Bi-modifying (see what I did there?) a small fleet of something based on a Pendolino would be very expensive due to the amount of important and already quite tightly packed stuff that would need moving around, which is surely the underlying reason behind not considering it.

That's why I gave up suggesting loco-drags for the Cotswolds line and accepted bi-mode IEP for that route.

The 67s manage the Aberdeen and Inverness routes on the sleeper don't they? And EC's Hull, Harrogate and Lincoln services don't have all that many stops while away from the wires.

Working in reverse order here: These last three are the most sensitive EC routes to extra time for needing to couple on a loco and potentially even run it around at it's destination, so a bad support for your argument.

67s working fine on sleepers is irrelevant as the Sleepers remain as locomotives and coaching stock due to the routes they have to operate and the current lack of a financial basis for providing something different as opposed to just carrying on. EC didn't have these constraints when ordering new trains, and lo they went for bi-mode.

I'm confused as to why you now accept bi-mode for the Cotswolds but not for very similar routes (mainly less than or equal to 100mph, plenty of stops, etc) - you then lose quite a lot of the benefit by only having one standard thing, which surely underpins your whole argument for an all electric EC.

Very wrongly, I am utterly dismayed at their decision to scrap 91s 10 years early and if I can make them change their mind I will.

I'm intrigued to know what difference you think you can personally make.

 

[Haydn1971]

Re the lifespan of a train... The Japanese don't seem to have issues replacing E4 trains after just 16 years - if it's not fit for purpose, time to replace.