IEP Construction Progress

[Kettledrum]

It's not an opportunity without a sensible alternative for the commuters doing the up to an hour commute, which Northern do not currently offer cross Pennine, not CrossCountry do between Leeds, York and further north.

End doors = slow passenger throughput = longer total journey times = angry commuters

It's not that straight forward is it?

End doors with vestibules provide some protection against the cold, whereas doors in the middle give everyone a chill. If you're doing a long journey from say Hull to Manchester - it's a 2 hour journey, so the comfort of a MK3 or MK4 coach would be great. Even on a 30-40 minute journey, a MK3 or MK4 coach can be a very pleasant journey, but the interior fit out has to change and over-crowding has to stop.

I accept you don't want to use them on the all shacks commuter services, and IEP means you can't use them on the GWML or ECML because the mix of rolling stock would cause timetabling difficulties.

In the future, when we have so many MK4 coaches available, why not fit them out without airline style seats, and ensure we have sufficient of them so we can use them on inter city services without people having to stand in the gang way. We could be really sensible and have seats with tables that line up with windows.

End doors would work fine on many services that join cities and towns that are around 20-30 minutes or more apart.

 

[tbtc]

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...

I was looking forward to IEP, but now I've heard from an expert that they aren't much use at shunting, so I've changed my whole mind - I even heard a rumour that they'd struggle to operate MerryGoRound freight too

 

[Haydn1971]

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

There you go again.... Love and peace, don't be an angry banker !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not that straight forward is it?

Not at all... I doubt it's possible to please everyone all the time, it's about striking a balance, I'm sure the 1/2, 2/3 doors suits some passengers and end doors suits others, where that balance sits, who knows !

 

[Rhydgaled]

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.

91s, being electric, have a 40-year life not 30. Also, even if 91s were an exception and were built intending a 30 year life, the general theme at the moment seems to be stock lasting well beyond their original life-expiry date. Apart from 142s, I think most Pacers and Sprinters will end up lasting well over 30 years.

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

A good home for the mrk4s but no good for the 91s due to lack of wires. The low top speed for most of the route would also be a problem but since they are currently run by IC125s rather than over powered DMUs the 91s might be ok if only there was OHLE to power them.

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.

When is it at Temple Meads?

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.

I do not, will not, accept that 91s are past it, until they are 40 years old. I am however also struggling to find a use for them if DfT insist ICGW and ICEC are both to have IEP-only fleets as far as electrified routes go.

 

[jimm]

91s, being electric, have a 40-year life not 30. Also, even if 91s were an exception and were built intending a 30 year life, the general theme at the moment seems to be stock lasting well beyond their original life-expiry date. Apart from 142s, I think most Pacers and Sprinters will end up lasting well over 30 years.

A good home for the mrk4s but no good for the 91s due to lack of wires. The low top speed for most of the route would also be a problem but since they are currently run by IC125s rather than over powered DMUs the 91s might be ok if only there was OHLE to power them.

When is it at Temple Meads?

I do not, will not, accept that 91s are past it, until they are 40 years old. I am however also struggling to find a use for them if DfT insist ICGW and ICEC are both to have IEP-only fleets as far as electrified routes go.

And there you go again. You have been told that lots of electric locos have gone to the scrapyard by the time they are 30 years old.

Doesn't matter what you will accept. It matters what the leasing company that owns them will accept and if it's not worth life-extending the 91s - and they most certainly would need major, expensive work to keep them going - for use elsewhere, then the arrival of IEP will see them sent to be cut up. Get over it.

 

[47802]

91s, being electric, have a 40-year life not 30. Also, even if 91s were an exception and were built intending a 30 year life, the general theme at the moment seems to be stock lasting well beyond their original life-expiry date. Apart from 142s, I think most Pacers and Sprinters will end up lasting well over 30 years.

A good home for the mrk4s but no good for the 91s due to lack of wires. The low top speed for most of the route would also be a problem but since they are currently run by IC125s rather than over powered DMUs the 91s might be ok if only there was OHLE to power them.

When is it at Temple Meads?

I do not, will not, accept that 91s are past it, until they are 40 years old. I am however also struggling to find a use for them if DfT insist ICGW and ICEC are both to have IEP-only fleets as far as electrified routes go.

How many more times it depends on a suitable business case and availability of funding of replacements etc, if a suitable business case is found then yes they might be kept 40 years or longer if there isn't they wont? same for any other type of stock.

Do you also not get the concept that it might make more sense to replace a varying fleet of different ages with a single common fleet, The Deltic's got scrapped at just over 20 years old because they were a small fleet of complex expensive beasts which didn't offer a significant advantage on secondary routes they would be cascaded to, compared to the alternatives

Most cars are designed to last 10 years but I scrapped a car at 5 years old it had done 140k it wasn't accident damaged but needed an expensive engine repair, which decided wasn't worthwhile.

 

[JamesRowden]

What about running mark 4s with new 110mph electrodiesel (bimode) locomotives on the then partially electrified Southampton/Reading-Newcastle and Bristol-Manchester Cross Country routes. After the locomotives have left passenger service, freight operaters might find them very useful on an ever more electric network.

 

[Loki]

What about running mark 4s with new 110mph electrodiesel (bimode) locomotives on the then partially electrified Southampton/Reading-Newcastle and Bristol-Manchester Cross Country routes. After the locomotives have left passenger service, freight operaters might find them very useful on an ever more electric network.

So... the Traxx option then.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I do not, will not, accept that 91s are past it, until they are 40 years old. I am however also struggling to find a use for them if DfT insist ICGW and ICEC are both to have IEP-only fleets as far as electrified routes go.

How many times does this have to be repeated? It's nothing to do with whether they are past it, and everything to do with whether they're cheaper to replace.

Why is that so difficult to understand? Why should we waste taxpayer money to keep trains running 10 years longer than they need to just to satisfy your neurosis that all electric trains must run for 40 years at the minimum?

 

[Dave1987]

How many times does this have to be repeated? It's nothing to do with whether they are past it, and everything to do with whether they're cheaper to replace.

Why is that so difficult to understand? Why should we waste taxpayer money to keep trains running 10 years longer than they need to just to satisfy your neurosis that all electric trains must run for 40 years at the minimum?

But if that was true why would countries like Belgium happily run our supposedly "knackered" old stock quite happily? I believe its more to do with politics and the publics love for shiny brand new trains. At first they will be very unreliable as all the gremlins are ironed out.

 

[ainsworth74]

But if that was true why would countries like Belgium happily run our supposedly "knackered" old stock quite happily?

What British stock is running in Belgium (beyond Eurostar and that's a bit of leap to call it British)?

 

[Loki]

But if that was true why would countries like Belgium happily run our supposedly "knackered" old stock quite happily? I believe its more to do with politics and the publics love for shiny brand new trains. At first they will be very unreliable as all the gremlins are ironed out.

There could be a multitude of reasons why a machine might need to be replaced under certain conditions but could be run fine under different ones. Not necessarily politics either. As explained before the 91s have trouble with fast acceleration and are also useless as freight locos so if they are to stay a suitable line must be found.

 

[Manchester77]

What British stock is running in Belgium (beyond Eurostar and that's a bit of leap to call it British)?

Only thing I can think of are the 58s?

 

[tbtc]

91s, being electric, have a 40-year life not 30

I do not, will not, accept that 91s are past it, until they are 40 years old

If you're not wanting to use the example of the last batch of non-standard stock for ECML expresses (the relatively short lived Deltics) then you may want to have a look at the lifespan of most 71/74s, the 81/82/83/85s, the 87s, most class 90s...

...in fact, I'm struggling to think of many examples of electric locos which have reached this magic forty year lifespan that you think all electric locos should reach.

Please, look at how few electric locos have lasted longer than the age the 91s will have reached (when IEP is introduced), rather than obsessing about forty years.

 

[Dave1987]

What British stock is running in Belgium (beyond Eurostar and that's a bit of leap to call it British)?

There are locos we classed as knackered that are now running around quite happily in Europe. I think it was some 86/87's.

 

[TheGrew]

There are locos we classed as knackered that are now running around quite happily in Europe. I think it was some 86/87's.

This is true but how intensively are they worked in comparison to what we in the UK would demand of them? I imagine the answer is far less.

My opinion is that we should scrap (or sell abroad) any 91s (apart from a couple for preservation). I quite like the HST with Mark 4 idea that was floated (assuming they could work together). As the HSTs do have younger engines. Don't know if work would need to be done to the chassis of the 43s though...

 

[Dave1987]

This is true but how intensively are they worked in comparison to what we in the UK would demand of them? I imagine the answer is far less.

My opinion is that we should scrap (or sell abroad) any 91s (apart from a couple for preservation). I quite like the HST with Mark 4 idea that was floated (assuming they could work together). As the HSTs do have younger engines. Don't know if work would need to be done to the chassis of the 43s though...

So the whole problem is is we work our trains far far too intensively. So we need to have brand new trains regularly which cost vast amounts, while Europe will quite happily have our old trains on the cheap. Yep that sounds like Britain.

 

[transmanche]

So the whole problem is is we work our trains far far too intensively. So we need to have brand new trains regularly which cost vast amounts, while Europe will quite happily have our old trains on the cheap. Yep that sounds like Britain.

Yes, you could work our trains half as hard to make them last twice as long[*], but then you'd need twice as many... which costs vast amounts.

Of course replacing your trains more often means you also get the latest technology, more efficient motors, etc.

* Over-simplification for the purposes of hyperbole.

 

[jimm]

There are locos we classed as knackered that are now running around quite happily in Europe. I think it was some 86/87's.

In Hungary and Romania pottering about on freight, not express passenger work. For the start-up operators using them they were a cost-effective and low-cost option compared with buying or leasing expensive new locos from the likes of Siemens or Bombardier. Little more than scrap value plus the cost of a heavy overhaul.

So the whole problem is is we work our trains far far too intensively. So we need to have brand new trains regularly which cost vast amounts, while Europe will quite happily have our old trains on the cheap. Yep that sounds like Britain.

Oddly enough lots of other countries also buy new rolling stock at regular intervals. We're talking about 30-odd locos that are working in Europe, which is hardly a mass exodus.

 

[Loki]

There are locos we classed as knackered that are now running around quite happily in Europe. I think it was some 86/87's.

86 are in Hungary, 87 are in Bulgaria. Neither are in Belgium (which by the way has newer electrics than we do despite having much less traffic).

So the whole problem is is we work our trains far far too intensively. So we need to have brand new trains regularly which cost vast amounts, while Europe will quite happily have our old trains on the cheap. Yep that sounds like Britain.

Not Europe but eastern Europe. Most of eastern Europe had not upgraded their stock since the communist regime and of course they'll go for cheaper second hand machines bought from all over western Europe not just the UK. Not to mention that 86/87s actually were bought by new starting private freight companies that did not have the capital to buy new. In addition to that if you look at other western EU countries (France, Germany and even Spain and Italy) you will notice that the UK performs by far the worst of all when it comes to electric locomotives. All those countries have bought new electrics much more recently than we have and they seem to be using them more than we do.
So a new electric/electro-diesel loco will be most welcomed especially if it can be transferred to freight work later on. DRS seems to be leading the way in this regard.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The magical 40 year lifespan is for EMUs, not for electric locomotives. With some life extension work, the Mk3-derived EMUs should be able to live on well past that age without there being any real problems as there would be with a locomotive.

 

[TheGrew]

The thing nobody has yet mentioned is that it will be substantially cheaper to conduct maintance for older locos in eastern Europe where labor is cheaper. The less intensive working also allows the units be out of action longer. With the 86/87s their retirement allowed the introduction of the 390s with tilting technology to allow us to run the wcml faster and more intensively, as demanded by us the public.

I know several people (myself included) think the procurement process for the IEPs is daft but the trains will allow us to get more out of our infrastructure and greater efficiencies. I for one am willing to bet that the it will easily out accelerate a 225 rake thanks to distributed traction. The fact is that there is simply no good home for the 91s. The ECML needs better performing trains, the mml has too many stops, the wcml needs tilt and the gwml is getting IEP for the electrified bits. For freight the effectively unused 92s have much better pulling power.
All in all the 91s were designed for one line for which they are no longer attractive to operate for a variety of reasons.

In conclusion get rid of the 91s but keep the mark 4s for something useful. (Like to sit in a hst rake)

 

[tbtc]

The thing nobody has yet mentioned is that it will be substantially cheaper to conduct maintance for older locos in eastern Europe where labor is cheaper. The less intensive working also allows the units be out of action longer. With the 86/87s their retirement allowed the introduction of the 390s with tilting technology to allow us to run the wcml faster and more intensively, as demanded by us the public.

I know several people (myself included) think the procurement process for the IEPs is daft but the trains will allow us to get more out of our infrastructure and greater efficiencies. I for one am willing to bet that the it will easily out accelerate a 225 rake thanks to distributed traction. The fact is that there is simply no good home for the 91s. The ECML needs better performing trains, the mml has too many stops, the wcml needs tilt and the gwml is getting IEP for the electrified bits. For freight the effectively unused 92s have much better pulling power.
All in all the 91s were designed for one line for which they are no longer attractive to operate for a variety of reasons.

In conclusion get rid of the 91s but keep the mark 4s for something useful. (Like to sit in a hst rake)

This is an important point, that I don't think we've really gone into - there's a danger of building stock for one particular purpose (when it's no longer needed for that purpose). A recent example being the 460s that will take a lot of money spending on them to convert into 458s.

I mention this because we get a few people suggesting a small build of non-standard stock for a specific purpose (like "observation cars" for the West Highland).

 

[Rhydgaled]

How many more times it depends on a suitable business case and availability of funding of replacements etc, if a suitable business case is found then yes they might be kept 40 years or longer if there isn't they wont? same for any other type of stock.

Indeed yes, it depends on the business case. And one of my two main points regarding the 91s is that there WAS a business case for life-extending 91s as their owners were working up a plan to do just that and even built a prototype to test whether one aspect of that plan was worth adopting (the duplex pantograph). Then, despite the business case for life-extending 91s, DfT decide they want them replaced and bang goes the business case. But there was a business case, it was the ecconomic option and DfT decided not to go with it.

How many times does this have to be repeated? It's nothing to do with whether they are past it, and everything to do with whether they're cheaper to replace.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

I understand that just fine, I disagree that the 91s are cheaper to replace. If they were cheaper to replace, Eversholt would only have been proposing the TraXX option.

As explained before the 91s have trouble with fast acceleration and are also useless as freight locos so if they are to stay a suitable line must be found.

And that is my other main point, there's nowhere else for the 91s to go, so the DfT should not have decided to replace them with IEP.

I for one am willing to bet that the it will easily out accelerate a 225 rake thanks to distributed traction. The fact is that there is simply no good home for the 91s. The ECML needs better performing trains, the mml has too many stops, the wcml needs tilt and the gwml is getting IEP for the electrified bits. For freight the effectively unused 92s have much better pulling power.

Oh, I agree, IEP will out-accelerate an IC225 off the mark no trouble whatsoever. Which is why I think the 270 IEP carriages ordered to replace the IC225 fleet would be far better deployed somewhere with more stops, like the MML, where off-the-mark acceleration is more important than on the ECML services with few stops.

 

[dosxuk]

Indeed yes, it depends on the business case. And one of my two main points regarding the 91s is that there WAS a business case for life-extending 91s as their owners were working up a plan to do just that and even built a prototype to test whether one aspect of that plan was worth adopting (the duplex pantograph). Then, despite the business case for life-extending 91s, DfT decide they want them replaced and bang goes the business case. But there was a business case, it was the ecconomic option and DfT decided not to go with it.

That's not a business case. It's an aspect of one, but the plans, and feasibility testing would feed into a business plan, not form one.

The ROSCO's could come up with a plan to refurbish a pacer, or rebuild a Mk1 EMU with a modern body, even go to the lengths of actually building one to see if it will work out, but that in itself isn't what decides whether the whole overall plan is viable, just the maintenance / upgrade work itself.

There are many more factors at play with regards to having a common IEP based stock for the ECML than just whether or not Eversholt can do a life extension on the 91s.

Equipment gets replaced earlier than expected on a daily basis in all walks of life. The 91s aren't special, and if the economic case is better to replace them than refurb them and keep them as their own special little fleet, as far as I'm concerned, someone should be warming up the torch now.

 

[TheGrew]

1.I understand that just fine, I disagree that the 91s are cheaper to replace. If they were cheaper to replace, Eversholt would only have been proposing the TraXX option.

And that is my other main point, there's nowhere else for the 91s to go, so the DfT should not have decided to replace them with IEP.

2.Oh, I agree, IEP will out-accelerate an IC225 off the mark no trouble whatsoever. Which is why I think the 270 IEP carriages ordered to replace the IC225 fleet would be far better deployed somewhere with more stops, like the MML, where off-the-mark acceleration is more important than on the ECML services with few stops.

I have split it down to reply
1. My understanding from what I have read is that the 91s are simply unreliable, the dual paragraph test was in part to see if they could be made more reliable it seems the test was a failure (or at least not as successful as they had hoped) and therefore IEP was chosen with it's ground breaking 60,000 miles per failure. Yes we are yet to see whether they can do it but I have a feeling Hitachi wouldn't be so stupid if they couldn't.

2. In regards to calling pattern part of me expects that with better acceleration more stops will be introduced on the current ECML timetable. Particularly once HS2 phase 2 is finished which is in the lifetime of the IEP.

 

[jimm]

Indeed yes, it depends on the business case. And one of my two main points regarding the 91s is that there WAS a business case for life-extending 91s as their owners were working up a plan to do just that and even built a prototype to test whether one aspect of that plan was worth adopting (the duplex pantograph). Then, despite the business case for life-extending 91s, DfT decide they want them replaced and bang goes the business case. But there was a business case, it was the ecconomic option and DfT decided not to go with it.

I understand that just fine, I disagree that the 91s are cheaper to replace. If they were cheaper to replace, Eversholt would only have been proposing the TraXX option.

And that is my other main point, there's nowhere else for the 91s to go, so the DfT should not have decided to replace them with IEP.

Oh, I agree, IEP will out-accelerate an IC225 off the mark no trouble whatsoever. Which is why I think the 270 IEP carriages ordered to replace the IC225 fleet would be far better deployed somewhere with more stops, like the MML, where off-the-mark acceleration is more important than on the ECML services with few stops.

DfT looked at the options it was presented with and decided it preferred a new fleet of trains for East Coast. Like I said yesterday, doesn't matter what you will accept.

So now the ECML doesn't need modern, fast-accelerating trains?

If you're on a service calling at Grantham, Newark, Retford and Doncaster, or several of those places, which are all 12 to 15 minutes apart, you'd be rather grateful for something that's faster out of the blocks than a 91 or an HST. Rail technology has moved on since the late 1980s and early 1970s.

 

[Rhydgaled]

if the economic case is better to replace them than refurb them and keep them as their own special little fleet, as far as I'm concerned, someone should be warming up the torch now.

In my opinion the economic case for keeping them where they are is better than the case for replacing them.

1. My understanding from what I have read is that the 91s are simply unreliable, the dual paragraph test was in part to see if they could be made more reliable it seems the test was a failure (or at least not as successful as they had hoped) and therefore IEP was chosen with it's ground breaking 60,000 miles per failure.

I do not believe any of that is true.

Firstly, January's Modern Railways shows the IC225 fleet to have just acheived a 23% reliability improvement and are fighting it out with class 390s for 11th and 12th place on the intercity table. Admittedly 11th and 12th place doesn't sound great, but there are four fleets with worse relability and the accompanying text claims that Virgin say their train reliability is mere noise in Network Rail infrustructure failure statistics.

Secondly, I don't think the duplex pantograph trial has actually run long enough for a decision to be made on whether it would be worth adopting as part of the proposed class 91 refurbishment.

Thirdly, the MTIN MAA given in Modern Railways for the best performing intercity fleet (XC class 220s) is 37,931. Not even the class 159s quite manage to get to 60,000. I suppose it depends what metric for failure rate Hitachi are using when they claim IEP will do 60,000.

Finally, the choice over whether to use IEP, 91s, TraXX or Pendolinos was NOT left for the market to decide. It was forcibly selected by the DfT who I firmly believe are not to be trusted given the mis-handling of the attempted ICWC refranchising, the inordinately expensive procurement methods they decided to employ with IEP and the alledged corruption* surrounding IEP.

2. In regards to calling pattern part of me expects that with better acceleration more stops will be introduced on the current ECML timetable. Particularly once HS2 phase 2 is finished which is in the lifetime of the IEP.

There's a relevant peice in the December 2013 Modern Railways, something about Franchising Director Peter Wilkinson considering specifying maximum journey times in the franchise. While IEP acceleration might allow more stops to be added, such prescription could work against that. And, just like IEP, IC225s have the potential to do 140mph if it is decided to raise the linespeed once ETRMS is installed in 2018-2020.

* Not sure if that's the right word, but there one or two posters on WNXX were suggesting that IEP was being advocated by somebody who got a lucrative post at Hitachi out of it, or something like that.

 

[tbtc]

there's nowhere else for the 91s to go, so the DfT should not have decided to replace them with IEP

The difference between you and me is as follows

91s are getting knackered on their current duties...

..91s they seem unfit for anything else...

...I think this means they are unfit for purpose and should probablyget withdrawn when IEP arrives...

...You think that this means we should keep these unreliable locos on their current services (rather than replace them with something better/ faster/ newer) because you think that electric locos need to last for forty years despite the fact that most electric locos have been withdrawn by 20/25 years.

 

[Rhydgaled]

So now the ECML doesn't need modern, fast-accelerating trains?

If you're on a service calling at Grantham, Newark, Retford and Doncaster, or several of those places, which are all 12 to 15 minutes apart, you'd be rather grateful for something that's faster out of the blocks than a 91 or an HST. Rail technology has moved on since the late 1980s and early 1970s.

I agree the slower services which call at more stops, such as the calling pattern you described, will benifit significantly from IEP. I'm not saying the ECML shouldn't have IEP. I'm saying it should have a mix of IC225s and IEPs, instead of the current mix of IC225s and IC125s.

What I am saying is there is less need for rapid acceleration on the fastest London-Scotland expresses than there is on the MML, and probably on the GWML. Therefore, given two fleets of trains (the IC225s and the 270 IEP carriages ordered to replace them) I suggest that the logical thing to do would be to use the IEPs on the GWML or MML and leave the IC225s on the East Coast, rather than using the IEPs on the ECML and putting the IC225s on the MML (which runs the risk of increasing journey times compared to the current services worked by 222s).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You think that this means we should keep these unreliable locos on their current services (rather than replace them with something better/ faster/ newer) because you think that electric locos need to last for forty years despite the fact that most electric locos have been withdrawn by 20/25 years.

That's not the only reason I think we should keep 91s on their current services. I also think it would be better to save money buying new electric trains for the GWML and/or MML by using the 270 IEP carriages (the ones ordered to replace IC225s) on those routes instead.

As for why the GWML needs new electric trains, because the 5-car IEPs need lengthening.