IEP Construction Progress

[HSTEd]

Also because SET sounds stupid.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I don't get why you think they can't keep timings on the GEML? Is this fact or your guesswork?

It is slightly-educated guesswork, based on the facts that the GEML does not have any sections with linespeed higher than 110mph and the difference in acceleration between a 90 and 91 is enough that 90s can pretty much keep time on some East Coast services (the ones with more stops).

Have you ever travelled on an express between York and Darlington? Not that anyone in their right mind would ever suggest using a Mk4 or anything similar on Transpennine in this day and age

Nope, haven't been north of York yet, maybe this summer (I hope). Probably should have checked a route map to see how straight York - Newcastle was before I posted that one, but once you're off the ECML there isn't going to be anything above 110mph. And somebody (tbtc wasn't it?) seemed to be suggesting using the IC225s on that route. Personally, I think mrk4s on Liverpool-Newcastle wouldn't be a bad idea given a suitable loco, but the 91 probably isn't suitable.

And you have completely missed my point - no surprise there. That wires to Weston are not justified unless it happens within the scope of an XC-linked wiring project to go south of Bristol, preferably in conjunction with an extension from Newbury or Westbury. Too many of the trains on the route do not start and finish their journeys at Weston to justify wires there.

I didn't miss your point, I disagreed with it. You don't think wires are justified, I think an hourly 8-car intercity service is enough to justify wires.

I dread to think how much moaning you would do if FGW decided to order regional bi-modes, with their evil diesel engines, to work local trains south of Weston if the wires ended there.

Actually, I've already said that a 444/158/442-alike regional express bi-mode (I suggested Cardiff-Portsmouth and Waterloo-Exeter as examples of where they could be useful) would probably be a good idea. Far more sensible than intercity bi-modes.

And you clearly still hate the very idea of bi-mode, whatever you may say about the Cotswold Line, given your unrealistic qualification that it should be worked all day by enormous trains, that would be burning money off-peak and contra-peak.

What's wrong with 7-car on quieter (including off-peak and contra-peak) diagrams and 9-car on busier (including peak) diagrams? The most obvious flaw is that, if every diagram has a busy service in it somewhere (eg. a unit coming into London on a contra-peak could then depart on a peak working), then all need to be 9-car to cover for that. I don't know the diagrams, so I can't say if all need to be 9-car or if a mix of 7-car and 9-car would work.

if, as noted below, you believe an hourly intercity service justifies electrification, then the Cotswold Line should be wired this minute, as there is a basic hourly IEP service planned

I think I also said something about it being a reasonable length of electrification, the Cotswolds is rather long. Plus the hourly service proposed is only as far as Worcester, so you can't electrify the entire hourly Cotswolds service without doing Worcester-Hereford too which doesn't have an hourly intercity service. Hence bi-mode.

I'm sure FGW would far rather be using a pair of three-car Turbos on some of those Weston trains - 500-plus seats able to run at 90mph, just the job for suburban work.

Are you suggesting the Bristol to Weston extensions of London services don't need to be London services, and can be replaced with a 6-car Turbo formation just from Taunton/Weston to Bristol? If so, that would deal with the problem quite nicely and you can have an all-electric (or almost) Bristol - PAD service without extending electrification to Weston-Super-Mare, assuming they won't need to be running 6-car Turbos off-peak.

What hourly Intercity? The following is what was said in the DfT Great Western franchise consultation document way back in 2011. I'm not aware that their view has changed:

Some, rather like, er, today's timetable.

Some, in today's timetable, being hourly for a significant period. From this I assume that the resources (number of diagrams) needed are similar to running hourly all day. Also, with the plan to bring Worcester/Cheltenham - PAD services up to hourly I assumed the standard pattern would roll out to Weston-Super-Mare as well. Maybe that was a mistaken assumption.

 

[transmanche]

Personally, I think mrk4s on Liverpool-Newcastle wouldn't be a bad idea given a suitable loco, but the 91 probably isn't suitable.

And whilst I'd personally enjoy the journey in mark 4s, they're probably not suitable for the route either.

Frequent stops, as TPE services are also providing a short-distance commuter-style service (particularly along the TP 'core'), mean the door layout isn't suitable. That's why the 185s have the 1/3-2/3 door layout instead of end doors like the 444s.

So using them would mean slower acceleration and increased dwell times.

 

[Rhydgaled]

And whilst I'd personally enjoy the journey in mark 4s, they're probably not suitable for the route either.

Frequent stops, as TPE services are also providing a short-distance commuter-style service (particularly along the TP 'core'), mean the door layout isn't suitable. That's why the 185s have the 1/3-2/3 door layout instead of end doors like the 444s.

So using them would mean slower acceleration and increased dwell times.

Personally, I think 444s is what TPE should have. While it might cause an increase in dwell times, I disagree that the 1/3, 2/3 door layout is suitable for TPE. In fact, I'd say it is the core Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool section that most needs end-doors like 444s, because TPE is the fastest service on the route. The clue's in the name, TransPennineEXPRESS, I don't think they should be using the suburban-style class 185 stock. Thus, it is the slower acceleration of the class 91s, not the end-doors of the mrk4s, that leads me to think IC225s would not be suitable for TPE.

 

[YorkshireBear]

How often do you travel TPE?

 

[transmanche]

Personally, I think 444s is what TPE should have. While it might cause an increase in dwell times, I disagree that the 1/3, 2/3 door layout is suitable for TPE. In fact, I'd say it is the core Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool section that most needs end-doors like 444s, because TPE is the fastest service on the route. The clue's in the name, TransPennineEXPRESS, I don't think they should be using the suburban-style class 185 stock.

Despite the name, TPE operates the 'local' service on the ECML[*] (e.g. the 17:02 from Newcastle is often crush-loaded, as it's one of only two evening peak services to call at Chester-le-Street.) Then add in all the short-distance journeys in the 'core' (a similar evening peak situation occurs with passengers travelling from Manchester Piccadilly to Stalybridge). So perhaps it was the correct decision to go for the 1/3-2/3 door layout... and I speak as a big fan of the 444s.

* Northern only provides a token service on the ECML between Newcastle and Darlington (IIRC; three northbound in the early morning, one southbound in the late evening) and no service at all between Darlington and York.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Despite the name, TPE operates the 'local' service on the ECML[*] (e.g. the 17:02 from Newcastle is often crush-loaded, as it's one of only two evening peak services to call at Chester-le-Street.) Then add in all the short-distance journeys in the 'core' (a similar evening peak situation occurs with passengers travelling from Manchester Piccadilly to Stalybridge). So perhaps it was the correct decision to go for the 1/3-2/3 door layout... and I speak as a big fan of the 444s.

* Northern only provides a token service on the ECML between Newcastle and Darlington (IIRC; three northbound in the early morning, one southbound in the late evening) and no service at all between Darlington and York.

Correct, include Thirsk, Dewsbury, TPE NW routes, Garforth and the Core is insane. Also it actually makes luggage easier to deal with. IMHO they are ideal for TPE simply because end doors would extend dwell times soooooo much. They struggle with dwell times as it is.

 

[HSTEd]

Perhaps we should just cut out the middle man and build 8+ car Desiro Cities.
Fixed formation and never have to worry about capacity again.

Whats the limiting platform on the North Transpennine?

 

[jimm]

I didn't miss your point, I disagreed with it. You don't think wires are justified, I think an hourly 8-car intercity service is enough to justify wires.

You diasgree but then utterly fail to explain why your 'opinion' should trump boring old facts on the ground, like there is no hourly intercity service to Weston, nor any plan for one.

Actually, I've already said that a 444/158/442-alike regional express bi-mode (I suggested Cardiff-Portsmouth and Waterloo-Exeter as examples of where they could be useful) would probably be a good idea. Far more sensible than intercity bi-modes.

So diesel engines on intercity bimodes are evil - or even just one shunting-get out of trouble engine on an electric set - but they'e alright on regional bimodes? So much for consistency. Even more sensible you could just wait until the existing dmus are life-expired and then electrify those routes. Oh, silly me, I forgot. We should just electrify everything now... or maybe not, if certain bimodes aren't evil any more.

What's wrong with 7-car on quieter (including off-peak and contra-peak) diagrams and 9-car on busier (including peak) diagrams? The most obvious flaw is that, if every diagram has a busy service in it somewhere (eg. a unit coming into London on a contra-peak could then depart on a peak working), then all need to be 9-car to cover for that. I don't know the diagrams, so I can't say if all need to be 9-car or if a mix of 7-car and 9-car would work.

Not this again. A seven-car IEP would have, say, 450 seats. Too big for off-peak and contra-peak, not big enough for peak jobs. I keep telling you to look at how FGW uses its 180s now. So please do it - it might help you understand, or maybe you just don't want to.

I think I also said something about it being a reasonable length of electrification, the Cotswolds is rather long. Plus the hourly service proposed is only as far as Worcester, so you can't electrify the entire hourly Cotswolds service without doing Worcester-Hereford too which doesn't have an hourly intercity service. Hence bi-mode.

It's rather long but it actually has the level of service, and more, that in your opinion, should bring electrification. As for the level of service past Worcester, let's wait and see. The trains that run to/from Hereford and Great Malvern now are roughly half the weekday service west of Moreton-in-Marsh. On Saturdays, every train bar one is to/from Hereford or Malvern. As for "hence bi-mode", your own comment is that intercity bi-mode is "not sensible". Make your mind up.

Are you suggesting the Bristol to Weston extensions of London services don't need to be London services, and can be replaced with a 6-car Turbo formation just from Taunton/Weston to Bristol? If so, that would deal with the problem quite nicely and you can have an all-electric (or almost) Bristol - PAD service without extending electrification to Weston-Super-Mare, assuming they won't need to be running 6-car Turbos off-peak.

I'm suggesting that if there was enough rolling stock available in the Bristol area for local needs, which is not the case now, then several of the HSTs that do go to and from Weston now would not be needed, as commuter-type trains could be provided for commuters. What you do with the local service pattern would depend on development of the Bristol Metro scheme. There is heavy and growing demand at Yate, north of the city, so you might well run across Bristol to that area.

Some, in today's timetable, being hourly for a significant period. From this I assume that the resources (number of diagrams) needed are similar to running hourly all day. Also, with the plan to bring Worcester/Cheltenham - PAD services up to hourly I assumed the standard pattern would roll out to Weston-Super-Mare as well. Maybe that was a mistaken assumption.

Maybe? It's there in black and white from the DfT that it won't be hourly, and very far from it. How on earth you can describe the current service as being hourly for "a significant period" beats me. See my post on page 18, No 261, for a summary.

About the only thing that is significant are the yawning gaps for much of the day and the amazing coincidence between the concentration of HSTs into Bristol in the morning peak and trains out of Bristol to Weston in the afternoon and evening peak - to handle local commuting demand with high-capacity trains

 

[YorkshireBear]

Perhaps we should just cut out the middle man and build 8+ car Desiro Cities.
Fixed formation and never have to worry about capacity again.

Whats the limiting platform on the North Transpennine?

TPE North. Ermm your limits are going to be at Chester Le Street, Thirsk, Garforth, Dewsbury, Stalybridge. All can take 6 definitely (Except Chester le Street) but i am unsure about 8. NW i definitely do not know, although we know 8 cars are fine to Scotland, all other TPE NW routes don't want the same stock as Scotland and TPE North.

But this IEP we are getting very sidetracked.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Despite the name, TPE operates the 'local' service on the ECML

Which is why I tried to make clear that I was refering to the Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool section as being the bit where TPE is the fastest service.

So diesel engines on intercity bimodes are evil - or even just one shunting-get out of trouble engine on an electric set - but they'e alright on regional bimodes? So much for consistency.

The way I see it, 8-car Intercity diesels use more fuel than shorter, slower, regional trains. Unless the short, slow, regional trains are running at high frequencies those routes are thus lower down the priority list for electrification. We can't electrify everything overnight and both the intercity and regional sectors need additional capacity now. Building bi-modes is better than building DMUs, and building EMUs is better than building bi-modes. Intercity, with the exception of XC, is also neater in electrification terms than regional express services, because the IC routes and generally wired at one end and not at the other, whereas regional express services can be coming on and off electrified sections here and there.

Not this again. A seven-car IEP would have, say, 450 seats. Too big for off-peak and contra-peak, not big enough for peak jobs. I keep telling you to look at how FGW uses its 180s now. So please do it - it might help you understand, or maybe you just don't want to.

Yes, you've said they use 180s on off-peak and contra-peak. That's all well and good, but they only have five of them and all the IC125s are 2+8. They don't have some 2+6 IC125s to bolster the number of short sets they have, which to me suggests they don't have many off-peak/contra-peak diagrams they can stick a short set on. Another problem with 5-car sets which I haven't mentioned before is, if you have a choice of 5-car or 9-car IEP and need the seating capacity of a 6, 7 or 8 car set the TOC might put a 5-car on it. 7 and 9 seems a safer mix to me, but assuming the 180s really do cope with everything they are diagrammed for (aside from the temporary IC125 cover) I would accept five or six 5-car IEP sets as 180 replacments if the TOC thinks having a micro-fleet of short sets is better than having nothing shorter than 7-car.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Yes, you've said they use 180s on off-peak and contra-peak. That's all well and good, but they only have five of them and all the IC125s are 2+8. They don't have some 2+6 IC125s to bolster the number of short sets they have, which to me suggests they don't have many off-peak/contra-peak diagrams they can stick a short set on. Another problem with 5-car sets which I haven't mentioned before is, if you have a choice of 5-car or 9-car IEP and need the seating capacity of a 6, 7 or 8 car set the TOC might put a 5-car on it. 7 and 9 seems a safer mix to me, but assuming the 180s really do cope with everything they are diagrammed for (aside from the temporary IC125 cover) I would accept five or six 5-car IEP sets as 180 replacments if the TOC thinks having a micro-fleet of short sets is better than having nothing shorter than 7-car.

It suggests to me that they only have 5-5 car sets.....

How can 7 and 9 be a safer mix. What happens when a 7 needs to be a 9/10 you cannot bolster it? With a five you can double up. 7 and 9 seems the most dangerous mix!!!

 

[ainsworth74]

Which is why I tried to make clear that I was refering to the Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool section as being the bit where TPE is the fastest service.

Which ignores that those service originate from Middlesbrough/Newcastle/Scarborough with the first two having run down the ECML as a local service and even between Leeds - Manchester - Liverpool have an awful lot of stops (seven) in most cases...

 

[47802]

Which ignores that those service originate from Middlesbrough/Newcastle/Scarborough with the first two having run down the ECML as a local service and even between Leeds - Manchester - Liverpool have an awful lot of stops (seven) in most cases...

You could potentially put IC225 sets on the new fast Liverpool Newcastle service but you need 379/380 style trains for the rest of the services, but I doubt any operator would want to do that in reality i'm sure they would prefer standardised fleet of 379/380 type trains

 

[joeykins82]

Please explain why you think the EMU'S ordered for the MML will be any different in length to the Meridians currently operating on the MML? Given the frequency of the current timetable five car units are more than adequate for the off peak and are easily doubled up during the peak. The whole point is you are not wasting capacity or incurring pointless access charges. I would have thought that the crewing and catering costs are pretty minimal on a full peak time train.

It greatly simplifies the operation of the service if you don't need to be splitting and joining trains to save on fuel, it means that if you get a large party of people who turn up on one specific off-peak service that it's not overloaded, you don't end up with one portion of the train overloaded and one very quiet.

If there was a compelling business case for running shorter fully-electric LDHS services off-peak through the use of splitting & joining sets then VT's pendo lengthening programme would've had them all converted to 5/6-cars, and the GW and EC IEP c801 orders would've only been for 5-car sets.

It makes economic and environmental sense to park excess capacity run by diesel traction wherever possible, but I think the cost:benefit analysis falls on fixed, longer formations for fully-electric services.

 

[tbtc]

The reason for suggesting Liverpool - Newcastle for 91s (and, clearly only a suggestion) was that the plans appear for this particular service to be run as a "fast" one (only stopping at Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield and Leeds between Liverpool and York) - with the stops at Stalybridge/ Dewsbury/ Garforth etc being taken up by other services (e.g. Manchester Airport to York EMUs).

Putting some 91s on Liverpool - Newcastle has some precedent (its what happened to the Deltics when they were replaced on the ECML), but this isn't about history, its about "what can we stick them on to get a few more years out of them, since they clearly aren't needed on the southern ECML".

Its not a long term strategy, but it might allow us to eke some twilight years out of the stock (since nobody is suggesting putting 91s on freight!) - clearly just a suggestion though.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The reason for suggesting Liverpool - Newcastle for 91s (and, clearly only a suggestion) was that the plans appear for this particular service to be run as a "fast" one (only stopping at Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield and Leeds between Liverpool and York) - with the stops at Stalybridge/ Dewsbury/ Garforth etc being taken up by other services (e.g. Manchester Airport to York EMUs).

Putting some 91s on Liverpool - Newcastle has some precedent (its what happened to the Deltics when they were replaced on the ECML), but this isn't about history, its about "what can we stick them on to get a few more years out of them, since they clearly aren't needed on the southern ECML".

Its not a long term strategy, but it might allow us to eke some twilight years out of the stock (since nobody is suggesting putting 91s on freight!) - clearly just a suggestion though.

Oh i agree it is a logical suggestion. My point about doors was for TPE in general ie the rest of the fleet needs 1/3 2/3.

I suggest freight.... they would need regearing but i still think they would be good as intermodal engines :P

 

[tbtc]

Oh i agree it is a logical suggestion. My point about doors was for TPE in general ie the rest of the fleet needs 1/3 2/3

Agreed - for all that people talk of TPE as "InterCity", the core service needs stock like 185s/350s to deal with passenger volumes/ churn (am only hypothetically talking about the one "fast" service planned post-electrification)

 

[Wolfie]

Why are we still calling the train the IEP?

The procurement programme was called "The Intercity Express Programme (IEP)"

What was selected from the programme was the Hitachi "Super Express Train (SET)"

The actual SET types are the Bi-Mode Class 800 and the Electric Class 801.

IEP is not a train, it was a procurement, which selected the SET and shall deliver the Class 800/801.

Sorry to make this point, but lets get facts right. IEP shall never be for the MML as i stated from Hitachi themselves, this has expired. Thus EMT might out of options select a Class 801 from the SET range for their procurement of electric trains for an electrified MML.

To many in the South East "SET" is SouthEastern Trains.......

 

[RichmondCommu]

You have no point at all - if it costs no more to run a full 225 train than a 222 unit, it doesn't matter if seats are empty.

I'm sorry but this is absolute nonsense. For much of the timetable you are wasting the capacity that these trains offer, capacity that would be much more useful else where.

No, I'm not suggesting bi-modes - that would involve new units. To clarify, logic suggests that you would use the old 225 trains on the sections that are electrified - the whole task of wiring the MML will take a number of years, so in the period it takes to do the work you gradually increase the number of 225's as they are released from ECML to replace 222's so they can then be moved elsewhere.

This is where your argument falls apart at the seams. The 225's are completely unsuitable for the MML given the number of stations that are currently served by services to and from London. On stopping services the 225's would lag way behind the Meridians, making their introduction a backward step. One can only assume that you are not a regular traveler on the MML?

Why buy new traction when the 91's are proven to work with the Mk4's ? Also, GEML would only need half the 225 fleet - leaving half a fleet to go somewhere else... Sensibly, MML as short term infill until a full fleet of Express EMU's are delivered.

Well it’s hardly rocket science! Traxx would appear to be cheaper maintain than the class 91's and can be used else where when the class 86's and 90's are scrapped / exported and the mk4's are replaced by EMU's. In terms of what to do with the 225 fleet; as you say half would go to the GEML and the rest would go off lease. Unless a charter set up become interested they are simply no longer
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...also, the schedule from Wikipedia sees lines to Corby wired by 2017, Derby & Nottingham by 2019 and Sheffield as you say 2020. Leicester will probably see wires by 2018. Given the current 80x fleet order will be built 2015-2019, you've an opportunity for at least 3 electric express units on the MML by 2017, a further 3-4 by 2018, several more by 2019, more by 2020. By 2019, Hitachi will have completed the initial order and it's not unreasonable that some extra sets might be required for ECML & GWML, plus some teething issues and production delays to resolve , so by 2020, production starts on 80x sets for MML, taking a couple of years to complete, we are at 2022, so that's potentially 5-6 years for the 225 sets to be useful in a MML franchise. That's assuming that CrossCountry ridership hasn't escalated to such a degree that a follow on order isn't for them rather than MML.

Just out of interest are you suggesting that Intercity services should terminate at Leicester using 225's before the wires are extended further?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suggest freight.... they would need regearing but i still think they would be good as intermodal engines :P

Now you might be on to something here if they prove to be more reliable than the class 86's / 90's. And of course they were designed for mixed traffic work.

 

[HSTEd]

If the trains are useless anywhere else then that capacity is not going to be wasted.

225s are just too esoteric.
New Locomotives is just throwing good money after bad.

 

[The Ham]

Chiltern could be another TOC who could be interested in the mark 4's as they would likely be cheaper to bring into service than the HST's mark 3's (e.g. no need for works to the doors, less likely to need re wiring, and so on)

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm sorry but this is absolute nonsense. For much of the timetable you are wasting the capacity that these trains offer, capacity that would be much more useful else where.

Not at all, you are missing the elephant in the room - there isn't any other long range route for the 225 trains - as said above, using the 225's on the MML is a stop gap until more suitable replacement units are built.

This is where your argument falls apart at the seams. The 225's are completely unsuitable for the MML given the number of stations that are currently served by services to and from London. On stopping services the 225's would lag way behind the Meridians, making their introduction a backward step. One can only assume that you are not a regular traveler on the MML?

Really ? - the distances between York, Leeds, Wakefield, Doncaster and Morpeth, Newcastle, Darlington and Durham are similar to the closer spaced stations on the Sheffield end of the MML and actually closer than the stations further south. The 225's currently have no difficulties reaching full track speed on these sections.

Well it’s hardly rocket science! Traxx would appear to be cheaper maintain than the class 91's and can be used else where when the class 86's and 90's are scrapped / exported and the mk4's are replaced by EMU's. In terms of what to do with the 225 fleet; as you say half would go to the GEML and the rest would go off lease. Unless a charter set up become interested they are simply no longer

Why would it be cheaper to buy a new traction unit for a rake of carriages that will be life expired soon - capital cost, revenue and maintenance on a current unit over 5-8 years will be far less than that of a new unit over its life of 25-35 years. Plus, the key point is that we know the 91's currently work with the Mk4's, we can't say the same about a unproven unit that will need custom specification to work with a 25 year old rake of carriages.

Just out of interest are you suggesting that Intercity services should terminate at Leicester using 225's before the wires are extended further?

As an interim, you'd be looking at 1-2 services per hour terminating at Leicester, there's probably about 20 services an hour calling at the station, with most of these using platforms 2 & 3, leaving 1 & 4 largely unused - to coin your words, it wouldn't be rocket science to accommodate 1 or 2 large terminating express trains per hour at Leicester.

 

[222001]

As an interim, you'd be looking at 1-2 services per hour terminating at Leicester, there's probably about 20 services an hour calling at the station, with most of these using platforms 2 & 3, leaving 1 & 4 largely unused - to coin your words, it wouldn't be rocket science to accommodate 1 or 2 large terminating express trains per hour at Leicester.

Unless these were new services I think splitting any services at Leicester would be very wrong, even in the short term.

 

[jimm]

Putting some 91s on Liverpool - Newcastle has some precedent (its what happened to the Deltics when they were replaced on the ECML), but this isn't about history, its about "what can we stick them on to get a few more years out of them, since they clearly aren't needed on the southern ECML".

It's not what happened with the Deltics. There was nothing systematic about their use on TransPennine trains. There was a Thursday run that was about the nearest thing to a scheduled service - I have seen suggestions that it was to test the loco booked for a Saturday railtour - but otherwise they were mainly occasional, unscheduled appearances if there was a Deltic spare at York from the group used on York-London semi-fasts on days when a Transpennine 47/4 was unavailable and a York driver trained to drive Deltics and with route knowledge to Liverpool was available.

Deltics were specially booked for a couple of farewell runs to Liverpool and back on timetabled services on Sundays in December 1981, just before their withdrawal, but other than those occasions, it was pot luck if one appeared.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, you've said they use 180s on off-peak and contra-peak. That's all well and good, but they only have five of them and all the IC125s are 2+8. They don't have some 2+6 IC125s to bolster the number of short sets they have, which to me suggests they don't have many off-peak/contra-peak diagrams they can stick a short set on. Another problem with 5-car sets which I haven't mentioned before is, if you have a choice of 5-car or 9-car IEP and need the seating capacity of a 6, 7 or 8 car set the TOC might put a 5-car on it. 7 and 9 seems a safer mix to me, but assuming the 180s really do cope with everything they are diagrammed for (aside from the temporary IC125 cover) I would accept five or six 5-car IEP sets as 180 replacments if the TOC thinks having a micro-fleet of short sets is better than having nothing shorter than 7-car.

Yes, I have. And I have also said, but again you've forgotten, that if FGW had more 180s, then off-peak and contra-peak trains to Cheltenham would also be 180s, as they were from 2002-2009. One of their last regular turns into 2009 was the 15.48 to Cheltenham and its return working. And, by a remarkable coincidence, this is another route where splitting and joining of 2x5-car trains is also likely to take place at Swindon.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Yes, I have. And I have also said, but again you've forgotten, that if FGW had more 180s, then off-peak and contra-peak trains to Cheltenham would also be 180s, as they were from 2002-2009. One of their last regular turns into 2009 was the 15.48 to Cheltenham and its return working.

Then why didn't FirstGW keep some 2+7 IC125s for off-peak and contra-peak trains to Cheltenham? Or reform some sets to 2+6 for those workings? They didn't, they went to the expense of getting buffets converted to bring their whole Intercity fleet up to 2+8, apart from the 180s.

 

[Rich McLean]

Then why didn't FirstGW keep some 2+7 IC125s for off-peak and contra-peak trains to Cheltenham? Or reform some sets to 2+6 for those workings? They didn't, they went to the expense of getting buffets converted to bring their whole Intercity fleet up to 2+8, apart from the 180s.

The 180s were extra to free up Turbo's.

Due to the nature of the way FGW HSTs are diagramed, different length sets don't work, as they very often get swapped during times of disruption and end up in the wrong places for days at a time until an exam is due

 

[Rhydgaled]

Its not a long term strategy, but it might allow us to eke some twilight years out of the stock (since nobody is suggesting putting 91s on freight!) - clearly just a suggestion though.

I'm still concerned that 91s wouldn't keep to 185 timings on the sections where the linespeed is 100mph or less. They need a 125mph railway (ideally a 140mph one) with good long gaps between stops and we only have two of those, GWML and ECML, and the gaps are longer on the ECML.

The IEPs ordered to replace the IC225s would be far more at home on the MML (guage clearance permitting) than the IC225s would be, we have what we have now let's use them optimally.

My point about doors was for TPE in general ie the rest of the fleet needs 1/3 2/3.

I disagree, the (York) - Leeds - Manchester section (where they are the fastest services) at least should have doors arranged like a class 175. Using a unit with a suburban layout for the principal long-distance York-Liverpool service is not right in my opinion. If there are too many stops is there not enough capacity to run propper local services to take over the stops?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I disagree, the (York) - Leeds - Manchester section (where they are the fastest services) at least should have doors arranged like a class 175. Using a unit with a suburban layout for the principal long-distance York-Liverpool service is not right in my opinion. If there are too many stops is there not enough capacity to run propper local services to take over the stops?

I ask again, how often do you travel this route? Seriously? Because the dwell times are already crippling, a 175 type train would double it at least. So.... i ask again how often have you traveled TPE through the core?

It is not about too many stops, even Leeds - Huddersfield - Manchester is now a commuter route. And no there is not capacity for more locals let alone the stock.

 

[47802]

I'm still concerned that 91s wouldn't keep to 185 timings on the sections where the linespeed is 100mph or less. They need a 125mph railway (ideally a 140mph one) with good long gaps between stops and we only have two of those, GWML and ECML, and the gaps are longer on the ECML.

The IEPs ordered to replace the IC225s would be far more at home on the MML (guage clearance permitting) than the IC225s would be, we have what we have now let's use them optimally.

I disagree, the (York) - Leeds - Manchester section (where they are the fastest services) at least should have doors arranged like a class 175. Using a unit with a suburban layout for the principal long-distance York-Liverpool service is not right in my opinion. If there are too many stops is there not enough capacity to run propper local services to take over the stops?

Debatable, for the scrum between Huddersfield and Leeds in particular suburban style doors are more suitable, yes you could maybe have a long distance style train for the Liverpool Newcastle fast service, but expect the operator will want a standard fleet of probably 110mph EMU's along the lines of the 379/380 or latest Adventra/Desiro equivalents.