IEP Update ? : HST two and a half

[Class172]

I'm not posting it again

I don't blame you.

 

[Nym]

Well, you've seen just how longer post it can be, and I'm sure all of you are fully aware of my position on the Bi Mode SET (IEP), and the IEP it's self having 26m carrages, whats wrong with the C3 classification?

 

[Rhydgaled]

And then what goes on XC?

Bi-mode Voyagers would be perfect for XC, so I'm not sure what you'd replace them with?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But what replaces the Voyagers from XC and what replaces the 91s at East Coast?

The Intercity 225s are easy, the services they would be running on Great Western (except the Pembroke Docks, because IEP won't fit) would be IEP operated otherwise, so just put those IEPs on East Coast instead.

If Chester - Crewe is wired (which it should be) then the "spare" Voyagers should go directly to XC

Exactly, Crewe-Chester wiring and displace all ICWC's 221s with a fleet of extra Pendos. The 221s would become 7-car bi-modes (except the few 4-car ones, which would become 6-car) and the 220s would become 5-car bi-modes. I think the Cotswolds line would take about 14 of the 220s away from XC, but with around twenty (longer) trains coming to XC from ICWC that would still be quite a capacity increase for XC.

The cheaper alternative is to give XC 14 of the IC125s made redundant from Oxford/Bristol/Swansea/Cheltenham electrifications to cascade 14 220s to GW. If you go down that route, put the XC IC125s on Plymouth/Penzance - Edinbrough/Dundee/Aberdeen workings.

And how economical is it to have old 57s working these services? And who is going to pay for all the "run round" facilities for these locos? And the extra staff?

What would be old if you converted some 47s to 57s? Just the bodyshell and bogies I expect, everything else would probablly get replaced. Also note that they would only be used on Bristol to Weston-Super-Mare drags and in push-pull sets (replacing 91s) from Swansea to Carmarthen/Pembroke, so not much running round (the only place you might have to install new run-round facilities is Weston-Super-Mare).

 

[HSTEd]

Wait, you have to run around with EMU drags?

Should they not be fitted with teh appropriate control equipment to enable push pull operation?

 

[jopsuk]

They didn't manage it for the Pendolinos/57s, but surely if the dragging is part of the design spec it could be made to work

 

[ainsworth74]

They didn't manage it for the Pendolinos/57s, but surely if the dragging is part of the design spec it could be made to work

But it was never part of the design spec to have 57s and 390s compatible in that way, indeed it was fairly late on that 57s even got autocouplers. If we knew that loco drags were going to be part of the everyday service then it would surely be part of the spec that they could be used in push-pull mode.

 

[jopsuk]

Aye- that's sort of what I meant.

 

[YorkshireBear]

not only that.... it wouldnt take ages to couple it would be seconds....

 

[Nym]

Well, coupling on what I'd design would be a case of couple when pulling into the station and uncouple on the way back when pulling out of the station, wouldn't even need seconds, just more precise stopping.

 

[Moog_1984]

QUestions now that the high speed new build routes are out with the greece economy:

1) How fast is it expected to go with AC 25kv and with DE mode?

2) do we need 140mph and is there capacity on the GWML for that anyway

3) will it tilt ?

 

[Nym]

1) That question makes no sense to me, rated top speed is 125mph with extendability to 140mph

2) Depends on ERTMS, and Yes

3) No

 

[ainsworth74]

QUestions now that the high speed new build routes are out with the greece economy

IEP will not be used on HS2 (at least as the primary traction anyway) so those questions aren't really relevant.

 

[tbtc]

The Intercity 225s are easy, the services they would be running on Great Western (except the Pembroke Docks, because IEP won't fit) would be IEP operated otherwise, so just put those IEPs on East Coast instead.



Exactly, Crewe-Chester wiring and displace all ICWC's 221s with a fleet of extra Pendos. The 221s would become 7-car bi-modes (except the few 4-car ones, which would become 6-car) and the 220s would become 5-car bi-modes. I think the Cotswolds line would take about 14 of the 220s away from XC, but with around twenty (longer) trains coming to XC from ICWC that would still be quite a capacity increase for XC.

The cheaper alternative is to give XC 14 of the IC125s made redundant from Oxford/Bristol/Swansea/Cheltenham electrifications to cascade 14 220s to GW. If you go down that route, put the XC IC125s on Plymouth/Penzance - Edinbrough/Dundee/Aberdeen workings.

What would be old if you converted some 47s to 57s? Just the bodyshell and bogies I expect, everything else would probablly get replaced. Also note that they would only be used on Bristol to Weston-Super-Mare drags and in push-pull sets (replacing 91s) from Swansea to Carmarthen/Pembroke, so not much running round (the only place you might have to install new run-round facilities is Weston-Super-Mare).

I stil think you're robbing Peter to pay Paul - taking the 91s from the ECML to the GWML so that the ECML gets IEPs because you don't want IEPs on your local line?

Same with the Voyagers - why shouldn't XC get all the "spared" 220s? Putting more old HSTs (too old for the GWML) on XC would mean them running even further under the wires (e.g. Glasgow - York)...

 

[Rhydgaled]

I stil think you're robbing Peter to pay Paul - taking the 91s from the ECML to the GWML so that the ECML gets IEPs because you don't want IEPs on your local line?

It is not a question of not wanting IEPs on my local line, it is a question of:

(a.) IEP not being able to fit down the Pembroke Dock branch and
(b.) not wanting any new diesel LDPE trains built, ever.​

By the way, Pembroke Dock isn't my local line, mine doesn't get direct London services (whichever of the two lines I consider 'local' I happen to be talking about). If you feel like slinging up OHLE to Pembroke Dock, Milford Haven and Fishguard and making IEP fit standard dimensions rather than having 26m coaches then you can keep the IC225s on the ECML. I wouldn't mind IC225s staying on the ECML if there was another sensible way we could keep all the current destonations IC served and avoid bi-mode IEP. The only rolling stock I can think of, other than the IC225s, which could make use of wires from Paddington to Swansea/Cardiff AND fit down to Pembroke Dock are Pendolinos, and using those is a non-starter for two reasons. Reason 1, ICWC needs them and reason 2 is they'd have to be dragged west of Swansea, which the reversal at Carmarthen would make a mess off.

Also, the electric IEP design rather stupidly (in my opinion) still has an underfloor diesel engine. That idea only makes any sence at all if you consider it in relation to the ECML's notoriously unreliable OHLE. If an electric Intercity train with an emergencies-only diesel engine makes sence anywhere, that place is the ECML.

Putting more old HSTs (too old for the GWML) on XC would mean them running even further under the wires (e.g. Glasgow - York)...

Too old for GWML? Don't forget I am a supporter of keeping IC125s on the Taunton/Plymouth/Penzance route until it is electrified, which if it ever happens won't be before 2030, more like the final cut-off date for IC125s of 2035. Also, I'd prefer the option which doesn't involve giving XC more IC125s, ie. wires to Chester and XC getting all the 221s to displace the 14 220s that would be needed for the Cotswolds line if we are going to avoid building diesel LDPE trains.

Even if I did have to resort to the fall-back option of giving XC more IC125s, I'd want to see XC try and use them only (or mostly) on the routes with most off-wire mileage (eg. Plymouth/Penzance to Edinbrough/Dundee/Aberdeen).

 

[Moog_1984]

What ever where IEP should or could and won't go....

I think the SRA and government should be seen to be rewarding which ever option offers the best of

1)has the lowest carbon footprint
2) Extends capacity on the routes most (speed and seats)
3) can expand as the infrastructure does
4) Speeds up timetables

If it isn't going to tilt and will only do 125mph in DE mode, then if loco hauled is lower carbon footprint after the wires end and allows of longer, faster trains to be budgeted for then the SRA should do something to reduce the cost of run-arounds, stabling and delivering locos to trains from depots.

A 4000hp + 100-110tonne loco can be made, and will do 125mph with 550 tonnes. THis would then be able to drag 225s to aberdeen and inverness, pendos to holyhead etc and IEP west of Bristol ( and west of swindon etc as the wires go up, a la WCML in the 60s). WCML to ECML pendos in future via derby, you name it.

With under body engines you drag a lot of dead weight about under wires and if a 20 quid gasket goes on one PU, the whole unit is out, seats and all, with a great unlikelihood of back up and any other stock being incompatible to run with IEP

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the SRA and government should be seen to be rewarding which ever option offers the best of

The SRA hasn't existed since 2006...

 

[HSTEd]

if you want to eliminate all under-the-wires diesel running on the ECML you are going to have to either spend a huge fortune on Sunderland station or get us some new shorter Multiple Units.

Mark IVs are out of guage there, I hate to think what would happen with 26m vehicles.

EDIT:

How much would it cost to get Class 57s to be able to push-pull Pendos or similar rolling stock rather than just dragging them? That would seem to solve the problem?

 

[jopsuk]

That's something I don't fully get- I do understand that it improves capacity a bit, but surely the operational downsides of going from 23m carriages to 26 are huge? Stick to the 23m length, base the dimensions on the mark 3 as close as possible, and clearance will be relatively easy...

 

[sprinterguy]

if you want to eliminate all under-the-wires diesel running on the ECML you are going to have to either spend a huge fortune on Sunderland station or get us some new shorter Multiple Units.

Mark IVs are out of guage there, I hate to think what would happen with 26m vehicles.

As I understand it, the gauge clearance issue with the mark 4 rakes in Sunderland station is one of height rather than end or centre throw, that requires a class 91 to have its' pantograph tied down in order to pass through due to the low height of the OHLE for the Metro.

However, there are still undoubtedly areas of the network where longer 26 metre carriages would be unable to go compared to the 23 metre vehicles, which rather unravels the argument for these trains being purpose built replacements for the "go anywhere" HSTs.

 

[button_boxer]

While pure EMUs with loco drags (or a detachable generator feeding the HV bus) makes sense from an energy efficiency perspective I can see problems with service robustness in times of disruption. Hypothetical example: suppose we have set A doing Aberdeen to London and set B doing the reverse. Set A will drop its loco in the platform at Edinburgh and continue on electric, set B will then couple up to the same loco on arrival at Edinburgh and continue on diesel.

When everything is running to time this is great, but suppose set A is running late and when B gets to Edinburgh there is no loco waiting for it. Do we cancel it then and send it back south (in A's path), making everyone change and breaking the connection for passengers coming from further north? Or do we wait in Edinburgh for A to arrive and then do a shunt to swap the loco over, or simply swap the passengers between sets? Is there even the platform capacity to allow this?

The only way round this would be to keep a supply of spare locos at each attach/detach point and spare drivers to do the shunting, but that kind of negates the efficiency savings...

 

[swt_passenger]

if you want to eliminate all under-the-wires diesel running on the ECML you are going to have to either spend a huge fortune on Sunderland station or get us some new shorter Multiple Units.

Mark IVs are out of guage there...

As I understand it, the gauge clearance issue with the mark 4 rakes in Sunderland station is one of height rather than end or centre throw, that requires a class 91 to have its' pantograph tied down in order to pass through due to the low height of the OHLE for the Metro.

Railway myth? When we discussed this last year, the online sectional appendix for the LNE area was still viewable online, and it stated:

Between Park Lane Jn and Greensfield Jn Mk4 + AC Electric locos are permitted diesel hauled for diversionary purposes only with pantographs locked down.

In the thread it was pointed out that Mk4 carriages were designed to the same overall dimensions as Mk3s so have the same route clearances, and locking the pantograph down is standard practice when hauling an AC loco off the wires.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=35419

 

[Rhydgaled]

How much would it cost to get Class 57s to be able to push-pull Pendos or similar rolling stock rather than just dragging them? That would seem to solve the problem?

57s only have to drag Pendos from Crewe or (hopefully) Chester to Holyhead, where there are already run-round facilities anyway. With what I'm proposing, they'd also need to run round at Bristol TM and Weston-Super-Mare on IEP drags. The only other work I'd have them do would be push-pull with TDM and DVTs, so no running round required there either. What is needed is specifing IEP to be able to work push-pull with class 67s on the ECML off-wire routes, or can you run-round at Harrogate, Hull, Lincon, Aberdeen and Inverness anyway?

With Aberdeen and Inverness, the locos (shared with the sleepers) would probablly be based in Edinburgh anyway, so you shouldn't have too much trobble if there's a delay.

 

[ChrisCooper]

While pure EMUs with loco drags (or a detachable generator feeding the HV bus) makes sense from an energy efficiency perspective I can see problems with service robustness in times of disruption. Hypothetical example: suppose we have set A doing Aberdeen to London and set B doing the reverse. Set A will drop its loco in the platform at Edinburgh and continue on electric, set B will then couple up to the same loco on arrival at Edinburgh and continue on diesel.

When everything is running to time this is great, but suppose set A is running late and when B gets to Edinburgh there is no loco waiting for it. Do we cancel it then and send it back south (in A's path), making everyone change and breaking the connection for passengers coming from further north? Or do we wait in Edinburgh for A to arrive and then do a shunt to swap the loco over, or simply swap the passengers between sets? Is there even the platform capacity to allow this?

The only way round this would be to keep a supply of spare locos at each attach/detach point and spare drivers to do the shunting, but that kind of negates the efficiency savings...

Then again, the same argument also can be used against IEP, as one of the things with IEP is 5 car trains that can be coupled up to 10 car trains. Again, 10car IEP arrives at Edinburgh and splits, one set goes to Aberdeen, the other either to Inverness or waits for a southbound and couples to that. Again, if there are delays then the same problems occur. If the service splits, one Aberdeen, one Inverness and one is delayed, do you sit one set at Edinburgh waiting for the other, or do you send it on it's own. You then need a path and a driver to send the other set once it arrives. If you send one north and the other back south, what happens if the set from the north gets to Edinburgh and the northbound service is delayed. Again do you wait, or do you send it on it's own then decide what to do with the other set that should have gone south with it. You also can easily end up with situations where due to problems a 5 car set is doing a journey booked for a 10 car.
The thing is the same problems can happen with fixed formation trains. If a train is delayed on it's incoming journey it can delay the return. Extra trains and crews are needed to be able to deal with problems. The only way to really help this sort of problem is to do away with the through services altogether, therefore no bi-mode as EMUs will do.