IEP setback

[Wath Yard]

Different suggestion then - what about shortening the length of the mk4 sets and using them with 91s on a Newcastle-Liverpool service? Could that work?

We can all name electrified lines, or soon to be electrified lines as in this case, but that doesn't mean they are sensible or realistic options for a cascade.

 

[junglejames]

Did my time machine not work again? :roll:



Different suggestion then - what about shortening the length of the mk4 sets and using them with 91s on a Newcastle-Liverpool service? Could that work?

But you still have 125mph capable stock on a route that rarely allows that speed, and its an awful lot of messing about when you could just keep them where they are. No messing about, and a lot cheaper than replacing them on the ECML.
At the end of the day, you could do absolutely anything with them. You could chuck a diesel engine inside, and take the electric gubbins out, and use them on Inverness to Wick services if you really wanted. But its all about what is sensible.

There is only one other vaguely sensible solution. Send them to the Midland Mainline once electrified. But they are still much better suited to operations on the ECML. Less frequent stops, and a nice long run to really stretch their legs and show their worth. They have plenty of life left in them yet. The idea of replacing them with IEP, was only thought of because they wanted to try and make IEP worthwhile. But like every other suggested extra use for IEP, it'll be dropped as they realise just what a stupid idea it is. The thought of tripling leasing costs just for the fun of it is the sought of silly idea you see on froth inducing forums. So watch out, the DFT must be on here somewhere!

 

[AndyLandy]

We can all name electrified lines, or soon to be electrified lines as in this case, but that doesn't mean they are sensible or realistic options for a cascade.

The problem is that the IC225s have very limited scope for redeployment. The only viable suggestion I've heard is to buy IEP EMUs for the ECML and redeploy the 225s to the MML. I guess the point is that if you're getting bi-mode IEP to replace ECML HSTs, you'd get fleet consistency by getting EMU IEPs in at the same time. Seems like a lot of effort to me though, I can't see any particularly good reason for the 91s not to live out their life on the ECML (although I can envisage the Mk4s being redeployed afterwards)

 

[tbtc]

I can't see any particularly good reason for the 91s not to live out their life on the ECML

I agree - there's not really much else for them to be deployed to (other than the MML).

They can't tilt so they wouldn't be much use on the WCML, The Didcot side of the GWML doesn't need any high speed longer distance trains (due to getting plenty of IEP), there's not enough of XC to require thirty wholly electrified trains, they'd be too long for a lot of TPE stations and they are too fast, too many of them and too fast for the GEML... what else to do with them?

 

[AndyLandy]

They can't tilt so they wouldn't be much use on the WCML

Purely from a suitability perspective, I wonder whether the IC225s would be any use on the Birmingham-Glasgow runs. There may not be so much need for tilt on the Northern WCML and there are some definite stretches where they could get a good pace up. Would free up some badly needed ICDMU stock, too.

Of course, that doesn't detract from the fact that (a) (baby) Pendolinos would be a better choice of stock and (b) you'd have to procure something for ECML to replace them with. Just a hypothetical thought about suitability...

 

[ainsworth74]

There may not be so much need for tilt on the Northern WCML and there are some definite stretches where they could get a good pace up. Would free up some badly needed ICDMU stock, too.

I would suggest that tilt is even more vital at the northern end of the WCML as that's where a lot of the speed enhancements due to tilt exist! At least that's my understanding of the situation.

 

[sprinterguy]

There may not be so much need for tilt on the Northern WCML

You have got to be kidding? The northern stretch of the WCML (Specifically thinking between Lancaster and Penrith, Gretna Green and Carstairs) is the most sinuous section of the entire route! If tilt isn't needed there, then (other than "a few twisty bits" around Tring and the Watford Gap) it isn't needed anywhere.

 

[AndyLandy]

I would suggest that tilt is even more vital at the northern end of the WCML as that's where a lot of the speed enhancements due to tilt exist! At least that's my understanding of the situation.

Ahh, right, in that case scrap that idea entirely.

I think I'd just assumed that most of the tilt enhancements were at the Southern end of the line. Whilst there are probably fewer built-up areas to work around at the Northern end, I guess there are plenty of geographical features that need to be navigated.

 

[tbtc]

Purely from a suitability perspective, I wonder whether the IC225s would be any use on the Birmingham-Glasgow runs. There may not be so much need for tilt on the Northern WCML and there are some definite stretches where they could get a good pace up. Would free up some badly needed ICDMU stock, too.

Of course, that doesn't detract from the fact that (a) (baby) Pendolinos would be a better choice of stock and (b) you'd have to procure something for ECML to replace them with. Just a hypothetical thought about suitability...

...just as long as we aren't putting non-tilting stock on the WCML (and slowing services down) whilst putting tilt-profiled 390s on the mainly flat/ mainly straight ECML (that have narrower bodies)

 

[ainsworth74]

I think I'd just assumed that most of the tilt enhancements were at the Southern end of the line. Whilst there are probably fewer built-up areas to work around at the Northern end, I guess there are plenty of geographical features that need to be navigated.

One of my favourite runs is Glasgow Central to Carlisle. Because of the tilting through that part of the route and at 125mph! Seriously I suggest you add it to your list of lines to be done

 

[The Ham]

One of the problem with the IC225's is the track access charges for it with 9 coaches are the same as an 11 coach Class 390. This then means that run it with less coaches (i.e. 6 coaches) makes it very expensive compareed to any other EMU stock.

Also, with regards to the possible IEP order which is now looking unlikely, the add on order was likely to only be made once the initial order had been started to be delivered. Meaning if the follow on order were to be fully delivered in 2020 it would mean that there would proberbly be up to 10 years left in the life of the class 91's (assuming a 40 year life). However if the order were not to be delivered until 2025 (which could be a reasonable timeframe) there would only be upto 5 years left.

Now that's not to say that the solution is IEP, however it can be seen that a replacement at a similar (or slightly later) time to when IEP is likely to be delivered. Which, as long as the costs are/were not too much (given on going cost savings of running just one class of trains over more than one and that the UK can't just order what everyone else in europe is buying) is why it can be seen why the possible order was put in place.

 

[AndyLandy]

One of my favourite runs is Glasgow Central to Carlisle. Because of the tilting through that part of the route and at 125mph! Seriously I suggest you add it to your list of lines to be done

Hehe, that sounds like fun, actually! I have to admit that I've had little cause to experience the Northern end of the WCML. Most of my travel is between Euston and Crewe (in fact, I'll be making that journey some time tomorrow)

One of these days, I'll take a train ride just for sheer joy of the journey, rather than because I have to be somewhere. Sadly for this particular journey, given I'm based in Southampton, it'll be a long day out!

 

[E-Rail]

Is there any reason why 90s couldn't haul MK4s on London to Norwich? They would offer a step change in quality (providing Eversholts proposals never see the light of day!) and be DDA compliant.

 

[AndyLandy]

Is there any reason why 90s couldn't haul MK4s on London to Norwich? They would offer a step change in quality (providing Eversholts proposals never see the light of day!) and be DDA compliant.

I'm not aware of any particular reason why that shouldn't work. I mentioned such a suggestion in an earlier post:

The other key observation that occurs to me is that they're only two years younger than the 90s, so there's not much real-world benefit in cascading 91s to replace 90s. However, if you're looking to create accessible trains and don't want to spend money on Mk3 refurbs, I don't see any reason why a 90 couldn't haul a Mk4 rake.

Not sure what you'd do with the 91s afterwards? Possibly use them to haul freight on the ECML?

 

[Harbon 1]

Not sure what you'd do with the 91s afterwards? Possibly use them to haul freight on the ECML?

There is no reason why the most powerful locos on the network shouldn't be hauling passenger trains like they were designed for. And as for the 90s, they are 15mph slower than the older, diesel engines that already run the line

 

[TheGrew]

In my head the 91s should stay on the ECML, as others have pointed out they should have another 20 years of service. If new stock had to be ordered (for some reason) then why not the Class 395 in 12 Coach formation?
If more Pendolinos were to be ordered I would put them on the MML which seems far more curvy (and would have potential for increased speeds due to tilt).
The GEML should only replace the 90s with an AC EMU with an 2+2 arrangement (a 344 if you will) ideally cleared for 110MPH running for future linespeed increases .we can dream!)
The Birmingham-Scotland Services should have baby Pendos ordered (just to keep maintenance easy for ICWC) and stop running 221s under the wires when they could be used to better use in several other places.

 

[northwichcat]

But you still have 125mph capable stock on a route that rarely allows that speed, and its an awful lot of messing about when you could just keep them where they are. No messing about, and a lot cheaper than replacing them on the ECML.

The proposed Newcastle-Liverpool service is to be a proper Intercity service and would be able to use the fast paths between York and Newcastle.

I agree that it would be better to order 5 car IEP for Newcastle-Liverpool than to try ordering IEP for ECML and cascading the 225s.

However, I'm confused by the claim in post 15 that the 225s aren't suitable for anything other than the ECML.

 

[tbtc]

The proposed Newcastle-Liverpool service is to be a proper Intercity service and would be able to use the fast paths between York and Newcastle

Something is still going to need to serve Northallerton/ Thirsk/ Chester le Street though, and the TPE services are generally the lowest in the pecking order on the stretch north of York, so I would expect (some of) them to remain on the slow lines.

 

[northwichcat]

Something is still going to need to serve Northallerton/ Thirsk/ Chester le Street though, and the TPE services are generally the lowest in the pecking order on the stretch north of York, so I would expect (some of) them to remain on the slow lines.

I imagine a new Northern stopper will be introduced. The proposed TPE timetable doesn't mention any stops between York and Newcastle other than Durham and the same is said in a Merseytravel document:

The units (released from Scottish services) will be used to reintroduce a regular through service between Liverpool and Newcastle, calling at Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield, Leeds, York and Durham only. From Liverpool it will be possible to reach Manchester Victoria in 32 minutes, Leeds in 1 hour 28 minutes, York in 1 hour 54 minutes and Newcastle in 3 hours 4 minutes. This will provide additional TransPennine capacity much more efficiently than strengthening individual trains between Manchester and York, as well as adding the fourth train between Liverpool and Manchester and the fifth train between Manchester and Leeds for which the cases have been made in the Northern Route Utilisation Strategy.

 

[tbtc]

I imagine a new Northern stopper will be introduced. The proposed TPE timetable doesn't mention any stops between York and Newcastle other than Durham and the same is said in a Merseytravel document:

It may well be that the *second* TPE service to Newcastle each hour will run fast, with the existing hourly service still on the slow lines serving Thirk/ Northallerton (plus Darlington etc).

I don't think there's room for any Northern service at Chester le Street etc - there are already five trains an hour (plus freight), with a proposal for a second TPE service on that route too.

 

[northwichcat]

It may well be that the *second* TPE service to Newcastle each hour will run fast, with the existing hourly service still on the slow lines serving Thirk/ Northallerton (plus Darlington etc).

I don't think there's room for any Northern service at Chester le Street etc - there are already five trains an hour (plus freight), with a proposal for a second TPE service on that route too.

While there are post-electrification proposals for 2tph between Newcastle and Liverpool, the 2014 timetable only features one and the second is expected at the expense of a Middlesbrough train.

 

[junglejames]

However, I'm confused by the claim in post 15 that the 225s aren't suitable for anything other than the ECML.

Well considering their top speed, and the fact they are a long distance Intercity train, then there isnt much they perfectly suit. OK yes you could run them to Norwich or on TPX services, but they arent perfectly suited to this.

So which runs are they really suited for?
ECML
WCML (with tilt bogies added)
MML (once electrified)
GWML (once electrified)

WCML has bendy pendys.
GWML would be good, if IEP was scrapped. They could operate the South Wales and Bristol services, alongside the 125s operating down to Plymouth and Penzance.
MML- Yes, again, could be good

So out of the GWML and the MML, are any better suited than the ECML?
Well the MML has less 125 running, and more frequent stops.

So the only routes perfectly suited to the 225s, are the ECML and possibly the GWML.

Whilst they could do a good job on the MML, whats the point in moving them if they are better suited to their current role? You only move them if they are better elsewhere. Considering they were designed with the ECML in mind, thats going to be unlikely.

 

[northwichcat]

Whilst they could do a good job on the MML, whats the point in moving them if they are better suited to their current role? You only move them if they are better elsewhere. Considering they were designed with the ECML in mind, thats going to be unlikely.

The point might be if the ECML needs additional carriages.

 

[RYS]

Does anyone know what effect this might have on the plans for IEP being used on the southern ECML for Cambridge services?

 

[dstrat]

In my head the 91s should stay on the ECML, as others have pointed out they should have another 20 years of service. If new stock had to be ordered (for some reason) then why not the Class 395 in 12 Coach formation?
If more Pendolinos were to be ordered I would put them on the MML which seems far more curvy (and would have potential for increased speeds due to tilt).
The GEML should only replace the 90s with an AC EMU with an 2+2 arrangement (a 344 if you will) ideally cleared for 110MPH running for future linespeed increases .we can dream!)
The Birmingham-Scotland Services should have baby Pendos ordered (just to keep maintenance easy for ICWC) and stop running 221s under the wires when they could be used to better use in several other places.

Please... no, I've had nightmares about 395s being used on the ECML. The 395s do their job well enough; 1hr short trips to London but the thought of those rattly, plastic, cold (in nature) and bland things being used to run the premier service on the British Railways with 3 or 4 hour journeys....no, just no.

Imagine sitting under that harsh light they have in those trains for several hours! It was bad enough when I was badly delayed on one of those things. Imagine reserving a seat and finding you've got the ones with no windows!

 

[ainsworth74]

Imagine reserving a seat and finding you've got the ones with no windows!

Because all the seats and all the windows line up on Mk3s and Mk4s?

 

[northwichcat]

Does anyone know what effect this might have on the plans for IEP being used on the southern ECML for Cambridge services?

The 110mph running proposal for 365s is possibly seen as a cheaper alternative to commuter IEP and I imagine the 110mph running for 350s on Northampton-London is the same.

 

[E-Rail]

Please... no, I've had nightmares about 395s being used on the ECML. The 395s do their job well enough; 1hr short trips to London but the thought of those rattly, plastic, cold (in nature) and bland things being used to run the premier service on the British Railways with 3 or 4 hour journeys....no, just no.

Imagine sitting under that harsh light they have in those trains for several hours! It was bad enough when I was badly delayed on one of those things. Imagine reserving a seat and finding you've got the ones with no windows!

I agree totally. There is something about the 395 that makes them a fairly unpleasant train to travel on. It could be the awful, cold, blue interior scheme, the shaking doors, the jolting ride, the monotonous automated announcements or the total lack of any sort of ambience on board. The only redeeming feature is that they arrive next door to the Cross but you're right about an hour is the most you would want to spend on one of them.

For my money, I reckon some of these will move to an electrified GWML or MML with the SE HS service being reduced to Ashford shuttles at some point. It simply can't be viable having all these units floating around the Kent countryside empty all day.

 

[HSTEd]

For my money, I reckon some of these will move to an electrified GWML or MML with the SE HS service being reduced to Ashford shuttles at some point. It simply can't be viable having all these units floating around the Kent countryside empty all day.

A six car unit floating around "empty" all day is not going to cost much more than 4 car units.

 

[TheGrew]

I agree totally. There is something about the 395 that makes them a fairly unpleasant train to travel on. It could be the awful, cold, blue interior scheme, the shaking doors, the jolting ride, the monotonous automated announcements or the total lack of any sort of ambience on board. The only redeeming feature is that they arrive next door to the Cross but you're right about an hour is the most you would want to spend on one of them.

For my money, I reckon some of these will move to an electrified GWML or MML with the SE HS service being reduced to Ashford shuttles at some point. It simply can't be viable having all these units floating around the Kent countryside empty all day.

I would suggest a completely different internal fitting to the South Eastern Services though I appreciate if the rattling could be a pain. Though perhaps they would be better suited for the fast Cambridge and Kings Lynn Services on Great Northern.

On another thought what 125MPH+ EMUs are there on the UK network? (other than the 373, 390 and 395)