IEP - signed

[tbtc]

The bi-mode IEP units can be converted to EMUs by removing the engines as electrification is extended. You can't electrifying everything at the same time so by introducing bi-mode it allows the trains to get an immediate benefit when under the wires and for the engines to be removed in the future when the route they run on is fully electrified.

This is why I think its a good thing - as more lines are wired you can either cascade the bi-modes to other routes (XC etc) or have the engines taken out.

Rather than waiting for everything to be wired up, order bi-mode today and get on with it.

 

[junglejames]

But that is wrong.
If the Class 67 is out because of its insane weight your only real alternative is the Eurolight... with an engine that revs at 1800rpm to develop its optimum power.

For 50 points guess what the optimum power output rev count is for the QSK-19.... 1800rpm.

The Class 67 pays a heavy price for its slow revving diesel in that it is ten tonnes heavier than the Eurolight's power unit.



How will a diesel locomotive use regenerative braking?



There is no design for a Cl180 using an electric transmission, let alone an electric power one, since the vast majority of parts in an ED Class 222 is identical to a regular one, and the ED components will have a design cost defrayed by an expanded eVoyager project..... it is ready to begin production in these terms.



Indeed, ut instead of having a bi-mode power train to maintain and procure you have an electric power train and a separate diesel power train.
Are you really saying a bi-mode power train will be more maintained intensive than a diesel AND an electric power train?



Unless you are suggesting the Chiltern rebuilds will last 40 years I'm not sure how the outright cost is important.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


393 miles from London to Edinburgh under wiring.

The route to Aberdeen is at-least a hundred miles from Edinburgh.

The return trip may bring it up to 800 miles but it also pushes the distance under diesel power to 200 miles.

Looks like he nearly scored a point with QSKs and Eurolights. However, 1 engine is still cheaper than 7.
A diesel loco will use regen in the same way as an MU, although admittedly coupled to the MU, it probably wouldnt be possible. However, as I said before. Argue about weight and regen all you like, the EMU and loco is more fuel efficient.
As for maintenance. Again, look at the number of diesel engines. The EMU will be maintenance freidnly compared to the diesel engines.

As for costs of the described EMU against the 222. Still no figures, and you still arent taking into account the better internal environment by having no underfloor diesels (oh no, thatll start another argument).

You also never understood the diagram you were given by failed unit?
The diagram only allows for 1 single trip north of Edinburgh. Not a return trip.

 

[DXMachina]

The EMU can indeed have regenerative braking... but a diesel locomotive can't have it for one important reason..... where does it regenerate energy to.

You can apologise now if you like, before or after you look up Hayabusa. A test-train (HST-derived) that operated in the UK with regenerative braking, VERY successfully. Bank of batteries, normal generator, normal traction motors.

Its to be found in the Wikipedia HST page under 'hybrid trial'

 

[LE Greys]

393 miles from London to Edinburgh under wiring.

The route to Aberdeen is at-least a hundred miles from Edinburgh.

The return trip may bring it up to 800 miles but it also pushes the distance under diesel power to 200 miles.

130½ miles to be precise, but 130½ miles of twisty railway with tough gradients in places as opposed to 393½ miles of relatively straight, flat line. The required traction characteristics are quite different, although HSTs can cope admirably with either. This prompted Gresley to design the P2s after all. Low gearing and good adhesion would be very useful on the Aberdeen Road, something that most diesel locos (although not the 67s) can provide fairly well. The 'generator van' idea that was floated for some time, i.e. a single power unit that runs the traction motors, might also have worked. Until you have to detach it for maintenance, however, since the original design had no motors. How would it move on shed? Well, either shunt it around with an 08 or put some motors in it. However, it might then do useful work (such as hauling trains) when not on shed, so give it some bigger motors and it becomes hock: a locomotive!

Whatever you do, it's a compromise. If I'd been given this as a brief, I would have pulled out the documentation on Intercity 250 and started from there, an electric locomotive with coaches that can be replaced by a diesel if need-be. Putting the loco at the London end would make the change at Edinburgh much easier. That's also a compromise, but one optimised for long-distance fast running, the sort you get when you want to do London-York non-stop and then do Edinburgh-Aberdeen with the same rake of coaches.

 

[Zoe]

This is the first time I have ever heard the argument that it is easy to convert a Bi-Mode to a straight EMU.

Is this really true ? Is it really easy to just remove the diesel engine and the fuel tank ? ... and that's all ?
I would love to believe that it is that simple, but somehow it does not ring true.

Considering the bi-mode is effectively an EMU that uses underfloor engines to generate he electricity when off the wires and that the ability to convert to an EMU was part of the specification, I don't see why it should be any major difficulties in this. It's not like trying to convert a 180 to an EMU.

 

[junglejames]

The bi-mode IEP units can be converted to EMUs by removing the engines as electrification is extended. You can't electrify everything at the same time so by introducing bi-mode it allows the trains to get an immediate benefit when under the wires and for the engines to be removed in the future when the route they run on is fully electrified.

So why when questioned could Agility/ Hitachi not commit to a 'yes, the engines can be removed'.
Also, what about stability. These trains are designed to have these gubbins underneath. It would not be a simple job of remobving the engines. So its safer to say they cant be removed. Anyway, what a waste of money if we did remove them.

Also, if you are still intending to electrify more route miles anyway, why not save money. ie EMUs and loco drags, or just keep the HSTs for the time being. Either way, if you are still intending for more miles to be electrified even with IEP, then my options are the cheapest options, and none of them mean you are left with an anorexic poo tube which NONE of the rail industry actually wants.

Why has at least 1 company tendering for the GW franchise, tried to suggest another option to the DFT? Why are the decent rail managers saying IEP is stupid? Why does nobody in the industry want IEP?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why would it not be possible to remove the diesels? If the TMS gives difficulties you could just remove the engine and replace the ECU with one that reports that the engines are present and working correctly.

As long as the driver never demands diesel power everything is fine.

Far too simplistic. Try stability.

 

[HSTEd]

You also never understood the diagram you were given by failed unit?
The diagram only allows for 1 single trip north of Edinburgh. Not a return trip.

I don't recall being given a diagram?

But if there is no return trip that is 393mi London-Edinburgh under electric power and 100mi+ Edinburgh-Aberdeen under diesel power.

So it is 12t for 393mi under electric power where regeneration is possible or it is 60-80t for 100mi+ under diesel power where there is no regeneration possible (because there is no significant energy sink to regenerate to)

 

[Zoe]

So why when questioned could Agility/ Hitachi not commit to a 'yes, the engines can be removed'.
Also, what about stability. These trains are designed to have these gubbins underneath. It would not be a simple job of remobving the engines. So its safer to say they cant be removed. Anyway, what a waste of money if we did remove them.

It was part of the specification for the trains to be able to be converted to EMUs. I doubt Hitachi would want to make too much public before the exact details are finalized. It's possible that they have been allowed to not meet this part of the specification but I would hope that this is not the case. It wouldn't be a waste of money to remove them as they would have done their job in providing new trains and with immediate benefit from electrification with the possibility of conversion to EMUs once the electrification is extended.

Also, if you are still intending to electrify more route miles anyway, why not save money. ie EMUs and loco drags, or just keep the HSTs for the time being. Either way, if you are still intending for more miles to be electrified even with IEP, then my options are the cheapest options, and none of them mean you are left with an anorexic poo tube which NONE of the rail industry actually wants.

Locomotive haulage can simply not offer the benefits that a multiple unit can. If you order a new fleet of diesel locomotivse then it's possible that once electrification is extended they won't have much use. With bi-mode IEP at least you can still use the train after you remove the engines.

Why has at least 1 company tendering for the GW franchise, tried to suggest another option to the DFT? Why are the decent rail managers saying IEP is stupid? Why does nobody in the industry want IEP?

They may not want it but they don't get to make the final decision, the DfT does. Climate change and peak oil are very important issues for the government these days and committing to a new fleet of diesel trains is not going to be a good idea with these concerns.

 

[junglejames]

So if I can do the work with 12t of weight... why is having 70-90t of weight anything but wasting 60-80t?



The EMU can indeed have regenerative braking... but a diesel locomotive can't have it for one important reason..... where does it regenerate energy to.


But it's not.... you are lugging 60t of locomotive that is not usefully producing power and constitutes an entire superfluous traction chain and te weight of 18m of body that is not neccesary.

Ah, i see your point weight wise now. However, locos are more fuel efficient. So the extra weight is needed. Its not totally unnecessary.
As for regen. How about diesels version of regen? They are diesel electric locos, so very possible. Its the problem of being attached to the EMU that may hinder it though. But still. More fuel efficient.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't recall being given a diagram?

That would be this one:

Take the following diagram.

0830 Edinburgh - London. (great waste of energy dragging unneeded diesel here)
1400 London - Aberdeen

So 800 miles of dragging unneeded equipment just for 130 miles of use! So much for going green!

One unit travels on that diagram 800 miles under the wires then 130 off of them up to Aberdeen.

 

[Yew]

Whatever you do, it's a compromise. If I'd been given this as a brief, I would have pulled out the documentation on Intercity 250 and started from there,

I fear thats what the DFT have done, taken IC250, added the current fad of MU haulage, as acceleration is obviously the most important thing for a train that runs non stop between york and london. Then realised they have no way to move it off wires, so made a silly bi mode idea.

 

[Failed Unit]

That would be this one:



One unit travels on that diagram 800 miles under the wires then 130 off of them up to Aberdeen.

Yep, and as considering that you need more energy to get this unit to 125mph it makes the dead weight even worse! At least the loco is only doing 100mph so although you can argue it is pulling electric equipment that is not needed (as is the IEP) it is not wasting as much energy because it isn't going as fast!

 

[LE Greys]

I don't recall being given a diagram?

But if there is no return trip that is 393mi London-Edinburgh under electric power and 100mi+ Edinburgh-Aberdeen under diesel power.

So it is 12t for 393mi under electric power where regeneration is possible or it is 60-80t for 100mi+ under diesel power where there is no regeneration possible (because there is no significant energy sink to regenerate to)

OK, let's take a diagram. For instance the Leeds-Aberdeen-King's Cross-Leeds diagram that I am very familiar with. Precise numbers are not very important but it's a couple of miles from Neville Hill to Leeds, about 220 miles from Leeds to Edinburgh, 130 miles to Aberdeen, a bit more for shunting and cleaning, another 130 miles back to Edinburgh, 390 miles to King's Cross, 200 miles back to Leeds and a couple off to Neville Hill. Assuming that Leeds-York is electrified by then, that works out at 810-ish miles of electric running, much of that flat-out at 125 and 260-ish miles of diesel running, much of that tackling steep climbs and nowhere exceeding 100. The ratio is about 3.1:1, but remember you're using more energy to move mass at higher speeds during the electric phase because you're moving faster, while it takes more effort to move the mass during the diesel phase because you're climbing hills. The best answer is to replace the traction entirely (i.e. change engines) but that's also inefficient in terms of platform space useage and requires electric locomotives. Assuming you're using an EMU, coupling to a generator van is another option, to save dragging it about with you while under the wires, however there you have to be able to move the thing about under its own power. That effectively makes it a locomotive, albeit a rubbish one for such a small task that can't be redeployed to do other work. Otherwise, you could haul the power supply around with you, but because you're moving faster, that takes a lot more energy (56.25% more, assuming 125 vs 100) so the energy penalty is higher for carrying the weight at higher speeds. Or your loco could drag an EMU. It could then be one of a large, mixed-traffic class that operates throughout the country hauling other stuff, but would have more weight to move because of the EMU's motors and provide less adhesion because it has fewer driving axles.

The challenges of designing an all-purpose express train are remarkable. That's why I have a lot of respect for the team who came up with the HST.

 

[junglejames]

It was part of the specification for the trains to be able to be converted to EMUs. I doubt Hitachi would want to make too much public before the exact details are finalized. It wouldn't be a waste of money to remove them as they would have done their job in providing new trains and with immediate benefit from electrification with the possibility of conversion to EMUs once the electrification is extended.


Locomotive haulage can simply not offer the benefits that a multiple unit can. It's one thing remove the engines but another to commit to ordering a new fleet of diesel locomotivs that will have no use once electrification is extended.

They may not want it but they don't get to make the final decision, the DfT does. Climate change and peak oil are very important issues for the government these days and committing to a new fleet of diesel trains is not going to be a good idea with these concerns.

Loco haulage has a lot more benefits. Also, the locos can be used after electrification. They can be used as thunderbirds, or be passed onto a freight operator, or replace 67s on sleepers. Plenty of options. None of which apply to diesel engines removed from IEP.
Plus, of course its a waste of money if you pay for a train with diesel engines, thewn remove the engines before the end of their life. Especially after spending so much money.
However, EMUs and locos are cheaper. So to purchase something cheaper, with the added benefit of extra work for the loco come retirement, has got to be better than buying something more expensive, and with diesel engines that have no life come retirment.

You keep on about buying locos being very different to buying a few diesel engines for the IEPs. But the loco option is the cheaper option. They may be bigger, but if they are cheaper.

You also go on about green again. But as stated numerous times. The loco dragging option is greener. So dont try and say the government had the green head on whenb they made this decision.
Its as if you had forgotten bi modes have diesel engines when you went on about the government and its green credentials.
EMUs being dragged are greener than bi modes. They are also cheaper. Therefore all of your arguments, and any possible green credentials have been thtrown out of the water.

Crikey, even if you scrapped the locos after 2yrs due to 100% electrification (which you wouldnt), it would still be the better option, and the greener option, because it is cheaper and greener than IEP.

Zoe, for someone who claims to prefer Loco hauled, it amazes me how you can be knocking it, and sticking up for bi modes, when your supposed prefered method is both greener and cheaper than these bi modes.

Also, no, the industry doesnt get to choose. But I was purely showing that if nobody wants it, there has to be a reason for it. Does it not seem funny that no one in the industry wants it?

Now onto something TBTC mentioned a while back about the costs of 390s and IEP. This was comparing the leasing costs, that Virgin are being charged, against leasing costs for the IEP. The 390s were brand new at one stage, and the costs were still cheaper. Therefore claiming its down to 390s not being brand new, is untrue.

Not to worry though. Im sure Roger Ford would love to hear how he doesnt have any idea what he is talking about. He is only a very experienced engineer, and probably the most respected railway journalist around.

 

[LE Greys]

I fear thats what the DFT have done, taken IC250, added the current fad of MU haulage, as acceleration is obviously the most important thing for a train that runs non stop between york and london. Then realised they have no way to move it off wires, so made a silly bi mode idea.

IC250 was an electric loco (the Class 93) working push-pull with MkV coaches. That's precisely how I would have designed it.

 

[Zoe]

The challenges of designing an all-purpose express train are remarkable. That's why I have a lot of respect for the team who came up with the HST.

I believe that was back in the day, or at closer to the days when the engineers would lead and build a train for the business and not where the business (or in this case the DfT) strictly specifies a train for the engineers to build.

 

[junglejames]

Considering the bi-mode is effectively an EMU that uses underfloor engines to generate he electricity when off the wires and that the ability to convert to an EMU was part of the specification, I don't see why it should be any major difficulties in this. It's not like trying to convert a 180 to an EMU.

You mention the specification. This means nothing. Considering Hitachis initial offering, which was initially accepted, and won prefered bidder status, was not capable of complying with the initial specification.

Therefore its fair to assume that just because the current specification says they must be ableto have the diesel engines removed, doesnt mean this will be possible.

 

[Zoe]

Zoe, for someone who claims to prefer Loco hauled, it amazes me how you can be knocking it

This isn't about personal preference, I'm sure quite a few people would like locmotive hauled trains with IC70 table seats that all line up with windows. That isn't the same as what is best for the railway though.

 

[junglejames]

I don't recall being given a diagram?

But if there is no return trip that is 393mi London-Edinburgh under electric power and 100mi+ Edinburgh-Aberdeen under diesel power.

So it is 12t for 393mi under electric power where regeneration is possible or it is 60-80t for 100mi+ under diesel power where there is no regeneration possible (because there is no significant energy sink to regenerate to)

Again you never understood the diagram. Edinburgh to London to Aberdeen. However, you keep arguing about weights and regen. But the loco is still greener. The extra weight is for a reason. To house the single diesel engine which is greener than the 7 diesel engines. So no, not unnecessary weight.
The 7 diesel engines are unnecessary as they do nothing for so long, and then end up using morew fuel once they do get going.

 

[Zoe]

Therefore its fair to assume that just because the current specification says they must be ableto have the diesel engines removed, doesnt mean this will be possible.

I would hope that this is not the case, any departure for the specification I expect would need to be approved by the DfT but we will will have to wait to know for sure.

 

[LE Greys]

I believe that was back in the day, or at least only just after the days when the BR engineers would build a train for the business to use and not where the business specifies a train for the engineers to build.

There's an interesting snippet on Running to Time (about the design and building of IC225) about the market-led railway and how the HST was designed 'accidentally' during an engineering/marketing meeting with BREL. Apparently, APT (which was a big engineering-led project) was being discussed, namely the possible introduction date, when one of the engineers suggested that a 125mph diesel train might be available in a couple of years. The marketing people immediately said 'go and build it'. Not only did it work, they even managed to sell it to Australia.

Thing is, the relationship went a bit wrong because of industry fragmentation. The whole point of BREL was to build trains for BR. Currently, the TOCs/ROSCOs are customers of companies who want to build trains for anywhere. So, when we try to come up with a bespoke British inter-city train, we have to go through a complicated process to design it, something BREL could have done much more easily.

 

[Zoe]

Thing is, the relationship went a bit wrong because of industry fragmentation. The whole point of BREL was to build trains for BR. Currently, the TOCs/ROSCOs are customers of companies who want to build trains for anywhere. So, when we try to come up with a bespoke British inter-city train, we have to go through a complicated process to design it, something BREL could have done much more easily.

The benefit is though that the companies now have off the shelf trains ready to build. Something that BREL wouldn't have done as they'd only built when they were asked to.

 

[junglejames]

This isn't about personal preference, I'm quite a few people would like locmotive hauled trains with IC70 table seats that all line up with windows. That isn't the same as what is best for the railway though.

But its been shown all over the place, that bi modes arent. They are more expensive, and arent as green as the loco hauled option.
Thats why i cant understand your stance. Your supposed preferred option is what is best for the railway, and yet you still argue against it.
Look at Roger Ford, or any of the respected railway managers. They dont want IEP. This sort of tells you that IEP and bi mode is not best for the railways.

Every single argument that the government has come up with for bi modes, and IEP, has been shot down by anybody in the know.
None of what i say is out of sentimental values. Its all what is best for the railway. If I was thinking along sentimental lines, I wouldnt be mentioning EMUs and locos. Id be wanting pure LHCS, with loco changes at places like Edinburgh.
But because im trying to look at everything, and leave anything sentimental at home, Im not going down that route. I am thinking about what is needed, and what is best.

When people like Adrian Shooter and Roger Ford start kicking up such a big stink, you know that there is a problem.

 

[HSTEd]

Plus, of course its a waste of money if you pay for a train with diesel engines, thewn remove the engines before the end of their life. Especially after spending so much money.

If the diesels are removed after a handful of years you will have several diesel engines which are useful elsewhere... if they are a common engine there will be a market for single owner, well maintained diesel engine that is only a few years old.

The market for engines is rather better than the market for locomotives.

However, EMUs and locos are cheaper. So to purchase something cheaper, with the added benefit of extra work for the loco come retirement, has got to be better than buying something more expensive, and with diesel engines that have no life come retirment.

You keep on about buying locos being very different to buying a few diesel engines for the IEPs. But the loco option is the cheaper option. They may be bigger, but if they are cheaper.

You have no evidence of this? You are using the IEP as an example of what a Bi-mode multiple unit must be like.
Because the IEP is insanely expensive all bi-mode units must be insanely expensive, this discounts all the problems with 26m vehicles and the like.

You also go on about green again. But as stated numerous times. The loco dragging option is greener. So dont try and say the government had the green head on whenb they made this decision.
Its as if you had forgotten bi modes have diesel engines when you went on about the government and its green credentials.

How is having 60-80 tonnes of extra metal moving 130 miles over the Aberdeen to Edinburgh line is green?
12t over 393 miles of electrified line will use less energy overall.
(~420t train with 4 QSK-19s developing 3000 diesel horsepower is somehow more fuel intensive per kilometre than a ~500t train with 3750 diesel horsepower? Especially as both engines rev to 1800rpm)

 

[junglejames]

I would hope that this is not the case, any departure for the specification I expect would need to be approved by the DfT but we will will have to wait to know for sure.

But we never will. The money we have wasted on IEP, surely has blown any chance of widespread electrification.
In fact, they are trying to reduce electrification in order to make bi modes look attractive, so they arent going to now electrify further.

A lot of the GW electrification further west initially only had the fast lines electrified. Quite a few loops and slow lines were not down to be electrified. Certainly west of Bristol Parkway.
Despite wires reaching Bridgend as part of the initial Valley Lines electrification, they never wanted to electrify to Swansea. Why not? If you can electrify the Valley lines, then why not Swansea?

 

[Yew]

The benefit is though that the companies now have off the shelf trains ready to build. Something that BREL wouldn't have done as they'd only built when they were asked to.

So if we had decided to order a batch of 75mph MU's with end doors in the early 90's, BREL couldnt have Made a 158 with a derated engine. or a revised bodyshell (maybe a networker bodyshell and a sprinter drivetrain) to give a 150 style MU?

The downside to standard designs is that most of them dont fit in our loading guage as they are designed for the continent

 

[Zoe]

But we never will. The money we have wasted on IEP, surely has blown any chance of widespread electrification.

We likely will know if the engines can be removed or not some time. If they can then it will certainly not have been a waste of money as it will have provided trains that can immediately benefit from the electrifcation and that has to be better than running a diesel under the wires until the electrification is extended.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So if we had decided to order a batch of 75mph MU's with end doors in the early 90's, BREL couldnt have Made a 158 with a derated engine. or a revised bodyshell (maybe a networker bodyshell and a sprinter drivetrain) to give a 150 style MU?

I'm not saying that but back in the day BREL built trains for BR and didn't have range of "off the shelf" products on offer before anyone asked for them If the trains are built for many different companies then it's more likely there will be something available off the shelf rather than needing to ask for something specfic.

 

[LE Greys]

So if we had decided to order a batch of 75mph MU's with end doors in the early 90's, BREL couldnt have Made a 158 with a derated engine. or a revised bodyshell (maybe a networker bodyshell and a sprinter drivetrain) to give a 150 style MU?

The downside to standard designs is that most of them dont fit in our loading guage as they are designed for the continent

They did, almost. It's called the Turbo, although it's based on the Perkins-engined version. Its descendents include the 168 and the 170.

Shrinking the continental designs may be one reason why some modern trains feel so cramped, they've been 'squashed' into our loading gauge.

 

[junglejames]

If the diesels are removed after a handful of years you will have several diesel engines which are useful elsewhere... if they are a common engine there will be a market for single owner, well maintained diesel engine that is only a few years old.

The market for engines is rather better than the market for locomotives.



You have no evidence of this? You are using the IEP as an example of what a Bi-mode multiple unit must be like.
Because the IEP is insanely expensive all bi-mode units must be insanely expensive, this discounts all the problems with 26m vehicles and the like.



How is having 60-80 tonnes of extra metal moving 130 miles over the Aberdeen to Edinburgh line is green?
12t over 393 miles of electrified line will use less energy overall.
(~420t train with 4 QSK-19s developing 3000 diesel horsepower is somehow more fuel intensive per kilometre than a ~500t train with 3750 diesel horsepower? Especially as both engines rev to 1800rpm)

Ah, are you now moving away from IEP onto a brand new bi mode that no one has heard of? Well that is different, and as yet, because no costs exist, we cant cost it.
As for locos being greener. Because 1 large engine is better than 7 small engines. Remember, most of the weight of the loco is doing a job, and so the train isnt dragging around as much unnecessary weight as you claim. Yes, the loco may way more than the extra weight of diesels under the IEP, but a lot of the extra weight is working. Its not like the loco is carrying tonnes of unnecessary diesel engines around inside its body.
If you claim so much of the loco is unnecessary weight, then the same could be said of the diesel engines underneath the IEP, even when they are working.
Thereforew, a loco capable of providing the same amount of power as the 7 smaller engines combined, will be able to do a very similar job, and will use less fuel. Science tells you 1 large is better than 7 small.

You are looking too much at the weights, and less at the actual efficiency of engines.

 

[HSTEd]

OK, let's take a diagram. For instance the Leeds-Aberdeen-King's Cross-Leeds diagram that I am very familiar with. Precise numbers are not very important but it's a couple of miles from Neville Hill to Leeds, about 220 miles from Leeds to Edinburgh, 130 miles to Aberdeen, a bit more for shunting and cleaning, another 130 miles back to Edinburgh, 390 miles to King's Cross, 200 miles back to Leeds and a couple off to Neville Hill. Assuming that Leeds-York is electrified by then, that works out at 810-ish miles of electric running, much of that flat-out at 125 and 260-ish miles of diesel running, much of that tackling steep climbs and nowhere exceeding 100. The ratio is about 3.1:1, but remember you're using more energy to move mass at higher speeds during the electric phase because you're moving faster, while it takes more effort to move the mass during the diesel phase because you're climbing hills.

Indeed, while you are drawing more power to move the 12t at 125mph than you would at 100mph, but you also have to account for the increased distance between stops on the electric portion of the line compared to the sections north of Edinburgh on both the Aberdeen and Inverness sections.
These stops force you to give up the kinetic energy of the train, and unlike the electric sections you cannot use regenerative braking.

For sake of the argument I will assign the 125mph dead weight a value 1.56 times greater than the 100mph sections, and then reduce it by 20% to account for the presence of regenerative braking on these sections (this is a widely used factor right?).
0.8 x 1.56 = 1.25.
12 tonnes times 1.25 = 15 tonnes of 100mph deadweight equivalent.

60-70t of deadweight at 100mph for 260 miles and 15t of deadweight at 100mph equivalent for 810 miles.
15,600-18,200 tonne miles for the locomotive option and 12,150 tonne miles for the bi-mode option.

The challenges of designing an all-purpose express train are remarkable. That's why I have a lot of respect for the team who came up with the HST.

This is an annoying problem.
A very annoying one.