Post HST Mark 3s

[HSTEd]

Well once IEP deployment finally starts, or whatever is going to replace the HSTs on the MML, GWML, ECML and wherever else, the HSTs will be redundant and, considering that they are now approaching 40 years old, likely withdrawn.

Im going to assume that the majority of the Mark 3 coaching stock in use with the HSTs, which is almost all nearly as old as they are, with the possible exception of stock built for WCML Loco hauled services will also be withdrawn.

Would any of this stock be in sufficiently good condition to recondition and then form into additional loco hauled rakes for reserve use? Somewhat like the Class 20 hauled trains of Mark 1s and 2s that used to be used in the summer on the Skegness line?
If nothing else I imagine it would be useful for numerous new "express" routes that would otherwise have to make do with increasingly scarce multiple units and for a greater employment of Football and other Sport charter trains in place of coaches.

If traction shortages require additional locomotives to be purchased for these services, these locomotives could either then be employed on EMU drags or rakes of Talgo derived passive tilt coaches could be purchased, but thats atleast a decade further down the line I think.

 

[WillPS]

I think this depends on where the IEP slips to. Any longer, and they're going to have to start installing power doors and reshaping carriages - and I think once they're doing that they'll want to secure another 20 years of life out of them (and potentially the powercars too - imagine bashers moaning about the loss of MTUs now!).

If IEP materialises inside of a decade, I expect that'll probably be the death of them - the DDA regulations will simply forbid them from being used and it'll be difficult to form an economic case for overhaul.

 

[HSTEd]

So if the IEPs start to slip till after 2019 or so they will be forced to make DDA compliance upgrades to the stock anyway, so they then want to squeeze every little bit of life possible out of them, otherwise DDA will represent too large a cost?

 

[WillPS]

That's about the size of it in a nutshell - speculation of course.

 

[HSTEd]

When is the IEP projected to start arriving at the moment anyway?
They dont appear to have even signed the contract with Hitachi yet?

 

[anthony263]

When is the IEP projected to start arriving at the moment anyway?
They dont appear to have even signed the contract with Hitachi yet?

2016 I heard. Although there is a lot of people in the industry who are trying to get the bi-mode version of IEP scrapped.

Considering how much the bi-mode are going to cost because of the weight etc i cant blame them, if the DFT continue down this route they are asking for trouble further down the road.

If their wire to Swansea, Cheltenham etc this should hopefully kill off the bi-mode IEP's

 

[swt_passenger]

Well once IEP deployment finally starts, or whatever is going to replace the HSTs on the MML, GWML, ECML and wherever else, the HSTs will be redundant and, considering that they are now approaching 40 years old, likely withdrawn.

You are getting ahead of things. Dft have stated that there are explicit plans to life extend HSTs for operations into Devon and Cornwall, and there are not yet any formal plans to replace the MML fleet either...

 

[rail-britain]

With respect to DDA requirements, surely there is only a minimum requirement that two coaches have powered doors (to improve disabled access only and not to all passengers)
I would expect sets to be compiled such that they have three such coaches, so that in the event one fails then the other remains available

Equally, an extension and/or exemption could probably be applied, as has in the past to other modification schemes

If money is spent upgrading the HST coaches to meet this DDA requirement then they are likely to be used on services for at least five years after the work is completed

If it is indeed a requirement that all doors are powered, then this makes a mockery of the world we live in, as many people expect to pull or push a door when they encounter these

 

[ACE1888]

MK 111 Life extensions, new locomotives to haul/top n tail them, overcrowding down to minimal levels anyone???

 

[Class172]

I think there is plenty life left in mk3s. Surely they would be particulary useful in Scotland and Wales where acceleration isn't a problem.

As for HSTs, they should remain for at least another 10 years; how about when the cascade happens sending them to Chiltern?

Down with the Bi-mode IEP!

 

[WillPS]

With respect to DDA requirements, surely there is only a minimum requirement that two coaches have powered doors (to improve disabled access only and not to all passengers)
I would expect sets to be compiled such that they have three such coaches, so that in the event one fails then the other remains available

Equally, an extension and/or exemption could probably be applied, as has in the past to other modification schemes

If money is spent upgrading the HST coaches to meet this DDA requirement then they are likely to be used on services for at least five years after the work is completed

If it is indeed a requirement that all doors are powered, then this makes a mockery of the world we live in, as many people expect to pull or push a door when they encounter these

I think they'd want rather more than 5 years out of them.

 

[HSTEd]

One problem with operating them all as loco hauled rakes as I see it would be the complete lack of DVTs, unless any retired HST power cars could be converted into DVTs, assuming only the engine and traction system is worn out.

 

[heenan73]

Everything really depends on the speed of electrification of GW/MML, and the eventual shape of the IEP order, which could change again.

However, Chiltern are altering some already to power door; if that looks reliable and affordable, the above mentioned Devon/Cornwall allocation will follow, and it's quite conceivable that EC/Scotland and ATW may hang on to a few as well.

I suspect the remainder will start to be disposed of, but there won't be any great hurry, until after 2020, when the new regulations kick in. After that, any ROSCO that wants to invest on the basis of future need will have to think hard.

Of course if 22x diesels are made redundant, rather than bimode, as a result of electrification, they may be retained in preference to HSTs, TOCs being the people they are. With the prospect of many DMU/DEMUs being released by EMUs, there's little need for cascading down of either 22x or HSTs.

I would expect sets to be compiled such that they have three such coaches, so that in the event one fails then the other remains available

Most unlikely. The risks attached to part central locking and part power door are big enough to drive a tank through.

Having a mixture would also be confusing to occasional passengers, as well as dangerous, as passengers would not have a clue what was going on.

All the rakes that are converted will be completely converted. And having been convereted, yes, they'd have a good few years of life left.

An exemption is almost certainly not going to happen; with almost 10 years advance warning, it's hard to claim they didn't have time to make the conversion (though I'm sure someone will try!).

 

[Nym]

I think there is plenty life left in mk3s. Surely they would be particulary useful in Scotland and Wales where acceleration isn't a problem.

As for HSTs, they should remain for at least another 10 years; how about when the cascade happens sending them to Chiltern?

Down with the Bi-mode IEP!

Here here....

I think everyone knows my views on the Bi Mode IEP (No problems with the standard one having a last mile / wires down diesel in it) but I honestly don't see the point in trying to re-invent the wheel at twice the cost of just ordering any old off the shelf LDPE EMU or LDPE Coaching Stock and Locomotives.

 

[anthony263]

Here here....

I think everyone knows my views on the Bi Mode IEP (No problems with the standard one having a last mile / wires down diesel in it) but I honestly don't see the point in trying to re-invent the wheel at twice the cost of just ordering any old off the shelf LDPE EMU or LDPE Coaching Stock and Locomotives.

I think there are a lot of people who share your view on the Bi-mode, hell even the amangement at FGW etc are not keen on the IEP.

Yes the bi-mode sounded great when it was first proposed on paper, but people are starting to wake up to the enourmess cost of running and maintaining the thing, in fact i suspect hitachi would prefer just a bog standard electric IEP or SET i should call it.


I think someone needs to bang people heads together in the DFT and wake them up for cloud 9.

I think if you wire to Swansea, Cheltenham etc it would kill off the Bi-mode, i know there are those who are against changing locomotives etc, well say instead of changing the loco at Oxford, couldnt the wires be extended to somewhere such as moreton in marsh or something,

Another reason why I think some MK3's should be retained after they are replaced, pity some new DVT's couldnt be built with the class 180 cabs to work with the MK3 stock.

 

[scotsman]

I think there is plenty life left in mk3s. Surely they would be particulary useful in Scotland and Wales where acceleration isn't a problem.[/B]

What are you on about?!

 

[Class172]

What are you on about?!

I mean the fact that Mk3s could be used with a loco in those places as there are many lines which have large distances between them. This would suit loco-hauled better as there is less of a requirement for the superior acceleration of DMUs and EMUs — we are going to be facing a DMU shortage once pacers are withdrawn.

 

[heenan73]

we are going to be facing a DMU shortage once pacers are withdrawn.

Actually, no.

Once electrification gets moving, and Thameslink/Crossrail stock starts to arrive, there will be more than enough DMU for the next thirty years.

And I'll believe the pacers are withdrawn only when there's photos from the scrapyard - they seem to be indestructible, despite being criminally fragile.

 

[Nym]

actually, with comited projects in e&w we're still 100 dmu short of killing pacers. Gw covers internals and atw. Nor tri bearly covers capacity increses and extra diagrams from the northern hub.

 

[Bridge189]

What is the current plan for the IEP anyways since all the hullabaloo over it being possibly cancelled? From what I gather reading various threads on here the HSTs on both the ECML and GWML will be replaced with the 225s now remaining to be the ECMLs electric mainstay (there only really half the age of the HSTs anyway). Is the current plan for the east coast to soley get bi-modes?

 

[sprinterguy]

actually, with comited projects in e&w we're still 100 dmu short of killing pacers. Gw covers internals and atw. Nor tri bearly covers capacity increses and extra diagrams from the northern hub.

Agreed. There will need to be a much wider reaching programme of electrification than that currently announced over the next 10-15 years if Pacers are to be entirely eradicated without buying new DMUs to directly replace them. Though the completion of the Scottish Central Belt electrification should help substantially if a number of Sprinters consistent with the numbers of those displaced in Scotland are sent southwards (Bets, anyone? )

I wonder, if all thirty six of the 165s moved to FGWs' Bristol and West Country operations following Oxford/Newbury electrification, whether a sharing out of FGWs' 150s between FGW and ATW would allow the death of the 143 fleet (), and end up staving off electrification of the Valley Lines for another decade or so...()
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is the current plan for the IEP anyways since all the hullabaloo over it being possibly cancelled? From what I gather reading various threads on here the HSTs on both the ECML and GWML will be replaced with the 225s now remaining to be the ECMLs electric mainstay (there only really half the age of the HSTs anyway). Is the current plan for the east coast to soley get bi-modes?

If nobody beats me to it in the next few hours, I'll provide a full fleet breakdown of the intended IEP fleet as most recently announced.

IIRC, then basically yes, the East Coast is only going to see bi-modes, and they will not be replacing the electric 225 fleet. The GWML IEP order will only cover the Cheltenham, Bristol and South Wales services. A number of HSTs are intended to be retained at this point to operate the South West services.

 

[Nym]

I did some maths around it and within current capacity with a 10% increase in service provision, it is possible within the 165 / 166 fleet cascade, provided some infill of the Thames Valley Branches is provided, there is enough to add some extra capacity round Bristol & Cardiff (By sending over some 150s to ATW) by use of the Turbo fleet. But without the Thames Valley Lines done, you can only replace them like for like, just. This would mean an increase in the provision of capacity, but not in the number of services. Something the Bristol commuter belt is in desperate need of.

And especially with the SW Services being run by retained HSTs, all diesel routes initally can be run by retained HSTs and then when the 222 fleet is cascaded away from the Midland Mainline thanks to full electrification all the way to Leeds, that will nearly see the end of HST usage on major mainline services, barring OA Operators. Wouldn't necessarily mean an end to the HST Fleet though. If they where fitted with automatic doors I can see Open Access operators and rural lines that are rather busy jumping at the chance of them, pending further electrification and cascade of Sprinters.

Yes, I'm looking at you Chiltern Mainline, stealing HSTs. Although the Chiltern Mainline would be a good publicity move for electrification, provided the turbo and clubman fleet are cleared to work somwhere else cascaded. Would release a shed tonne of reasonably new DMUs into the rest of the network.

 

[swt_passenger]

What is the current plan for the IEP anyways since all the hullabaloo over it being possibly cancelled? From what I gather reading various threads on here the HSTs on both the ECML and GWML will be replaced with the 225s now remaining to be the ECMLs electric mainstay (there only really half the age of the HSTs anyway). Is the current plan for the east coast to soley get bi-modes?

In terms of replacement trains for the current EC franchise yes, but 'the ECML' includes a small number (10?) of 5 car electric units - believed to be for Cambridge/Kings Lynn fast services. It is therefore important to differentiate between 'the ECML' route, and the 'ECML TOC'.

 

[scotsman]

I mean the fact that Mk3s could be used with a loco in those places as there are many lines which have large distances between them. This would suit loco-hauled better as there is less of a requirement for the superior acceleration of DMUs and EMUs — we are going to be facing a DMU shortage once pacers are withdrawn.

There's not many, and they're looking to cut journey times on those lines. Most stations in Scotland are not that far apart.

 

[HSTEd]

Any chance of them being converted to multiple units with the addition of rebuilt/new driving motors in true Southern Region tradition?

 

[sprinterguy]

In terms of replacement trains for the current EC franchise yes, but 'the ECML' includes a small number (10?) of 5 car electric units - believed to be for Cambridge/Kings Lynn fast services. It is therefore important to differentiate between 'the ECML' route, and the 'ECML TOC'.

Ok, so somewhat later than intended, but as promised here is a breakdown of the IEP fleet as has been most recently proposed, to my knowledge:

There will be 100 trains, forming an order for 533 carriages.

Great Western are to receive:
Eleven 8-car Electric IEPs
Nine 5-car Electric IEPs
Thirty five 5-car Bi-mode IEPs

East Coast are to receive:
Ten 5-car Electric IEPs
Thirty five 5-car Bi-mode IEPs

Though I can't work out why on earth there is a need for that many bi-mode IEPs. :?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I did some maths around it and within current capacity with a 10% increase in service provision, it is possible within the 165 / 166 fleet cascade, provided some infill of the Thames Valley Branches is provided, there is enough to add some extra capacity round Bristol & Cardiff (By sending over some 150s to ATW) by use of the Turbo fleet. But without the Thames Valley Lines done, you can only replace them like for like, just. This would mean an increase in the provision of capacity, but not in the number of services. Something the Bristol commuter belt is in desperate need of.

Hmmmm, that's interesting. The quick maths that I have just done on the matter also concurs with your calculations. The possibility of replacing all of the 143s with FGW 150s is rather hampered by the fact that there are routes in FGW territory, I'm thinking particularly of the Devon and Cornish branches, that I doubt would ever be cleared for Network Turbos, and are much better suited to 150s anyway.

Here was my thinking:
Before the London Overground and LM cascades had begun, FGW had seventeen 150/2s. This number was a bit short of what was ideally required, as was witnessed by hire-ins from ATW and the formation of loco hauled sets.

FGW look to be gaining an additional 2/3 class 150/2s from London Midland, giving them a total of (probably) 20 x 150/2s.

FGW also gained the eight Silverlink 150/1s from LO. These are now being augmented by 10 x 150/1s from LM (Or some number near to that). This gives a total of 18 x 150/1s.

Sooo, if FGW were to cascade all of its' 150/2s to ATW (ATW have seventeen 143s, but it seems a bit awkward leaving FGW with just two or three 150/2s), then that would replace the ATW 143s, and leave FGW with 18 x 150/1s.

It would require eight of these 150/1s to replace FGWs' eight 143s, unless Network Turbos could be cleared for the routes that are currently worked by 143s (Severn Beach line and other things in the area isn't it?). That would leave FGW with 10 x 150/1s for working the Cornish branches. Would that be enough?

So basically, it all hinges on how many routes the Network Turbos could be cleared for if they were sent Bristol way. If they could replace FGWs' 143s directly, then that would lead to quite a reasonable increase in available DMUs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although the Chiltern Mainline would be a good publicity move for electrification, provided the turbo and clubman fleet are cleared to work somwhere else cascaded. Would release a shed tonne of reasonably new DMUs into the rest of the network.

Indeed, there's a good sized fleet of nineteen 3/4-car regional DMUs there for the taking if the Chiltern line is electrified. And of course it would benefit Crosscountry too, so I dearly hope that electrification of that line occurs sometime in the next fifteen years. It's quite likely that you could include electrification of the Snow Hill local lines in such a scheme too, releasing a lot of two and three car 172s for use elsewhere.

 

[BR Blue]

What about ex-HST mk3`s being pulled around the newly electrified north-west by class 90`s? Shortened sets of course, about 4 or 5 carriages. Rear one converted to DBSO for push-pull operation. Call it a pretendo-pacer!

We are likely to see all HST sets being utilised, to the maximum, right up until 2019 and maybe beyond.

 

[sprinterguy]

We are likely to see all HST sets being utilised, to the maximum, right up until 2019 and maybe beyond.

I suppose that depends on whether any new takers can be found for the displaced East Coast and GWML sets. Then again, for a little while when Virgin XC were withdrawing the last of their HSTs I thought, and I wasn't the only one I don't think, that the end had come for many of the trains, and look how wrong that prediction turned out to be!

 

[Nym]

Well, a decision needs to be made soon about electrification, we're fast approaching the cut off point for this.

It is possible (if you throw enough money at it) to electrify enough routes to kill off pacers completely by 2019, and continuing to kill off the HST by 2030, but it needs to be done rather quickly, and in areas where it will have some political benifit too.

Theres two major sets in need of retirement, and if we're to avoid ordering anything new with a diesel engine fitted to it, then there needs to be two sets of strategy, one to cover all the LDPE Stock, where lines will be electrified and EMUs provided for them, and one for the Inter-Reigonal and commuter route electrification. The latter requires areas that are showing signifcant potential growth where electrification could bring a standardised 4 car EMU where there is currently a 2 car DMU (Usually a pacer)

The LDPE EMU is easy to cover...

Midland Mainline releases 27 DMUs that can cover non-electrified routes until 2040.

The Electra sets can live through until 2030, and for the odd off wires service, can be hauled by any number of locomotives. Provided they can provide ETH.

So...

Midland Mainline Electrification, all of it, end to end upto Leeds and including links into York and Doncaster. Releases...

The 222 fleet, all 27 units

Associated HSTs to retire

DMUs from the following flows:

Doncaster - Sheffeild via Meadowhall
Leeds - Sheffeild - Nottingham via Wakefeild
Nottingham - Derby

By my count thats about 12 DMUs

The remaining electrification of good sense would be the scottish central belt to Aberdeen, freeing numerous scottish units and the requirement for Bi Mode on ICEC.

If TPE North where completed this would release about 30 DMU in the form of the 185 units.

Welsh Valleys would be a good cut into the DMU fleet and would also be politically very popular.

Additional electrification in the North West would also be very popular politically and provide a massive capacity increase on routes that are showing massive potential growth, especially the commuter routes into Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield, such electrification would include the likes of;

Lostock Jcn - Wigan South Jcns - Wallgate Station
Guide Bridge / Ashburys - New Mills Central - Chinley
Hazel Grove - Chinley (These would be combined to make a 'chinley interchange' with everything over the Hope Valley only calling at principal stations, then Chinley, then the hope vallley to sheffield, the same story for Buxton services, they would call only at Stockport and Hazel Grove then all stations to Buxton.

These aren't nesseserraly high DMU displacement, it would only kill off about 15DMU but it would be a very popular move and make way for the number of DMU off Piccadilly and Victoria to be significantly reduced.

Any other schemes that anyone can think of, we need to release 100DMU, be politically popular, work atop of MML electrification and GW reaching Swansea, preferably also have a positive BCR. And if it provides a step increase in capacity where it will increase demand then it would be a large bonus.

Areas with demand restricted by service provision I can currently think of include major commuter corridors.

eg.

Calder Valley, Atherton Loop, CLC Route, etc.

 

[tbtc]

If their wire to Swansea, Cheltenham etc this should hopefully kill off the bi-mode IEP's

The messy nature of Great Western London services means that bi-mode will be useful.

Whilst the "core" is London - Bristol/ Cardiff/ Oxford (all being electrified), and you want to extend beyond to Swansea and Cheltenham, the wires would take even longer to reach these places.

Plus, if Swansea and Cheltenham are wired, you'd still need to do something about direct London trains for Worcester/ Hereford/ Weston/ Devon/ Cornwall/ Fishguard...

The way I look at it is that (given the time taken to wire the "core" GWML) bi-mode will be a fast way of getting some of the benefit to Swansea/ Cheltenham (etc), plus if this improves the business case for electrification to these places then the bi-mode IEPs used on Swansea/ Cheltenham services can be moved on to routes like London - Hull or XC (and *proper* electric IEPs ordered for Swansea/ Cheltenham).

(then, once routes like Selby - Hull are wired up, the bi-mode units can be moved on to other partially electrified lines - virtuous circle)