Rationale for replacing MK4 coaches

[trebor79]

Hi,

I'm wondering what the rational is for replacing the MK4 sets with IETs?

I can understand the logic behind replacing the HSTs with new bi-mode trains, but the Mk4s are still in good nick and up to modern standards.

Obviously the class 91 locos have their issues. Would it not have been simpler and cheaper to simply replace the locos? The coaches must be good for another 20 years with a further high quality refurbishment.

By that time HS2 will nbe here (in theory) at which point you replace the trains on the classic lines with something suited to the services which will be operating on them.

So my question is, was a class 91 replacement considered and why was the option rejected for entirely new trains?

 

[pdeaves]

Standard fleet; also fits the new way of doing maintenance contracts. Longer overall lifespan to fit the maintenance contract. More operational flexibility (when using multiples of 5 car - the ECML will have 5s, won't it?). Annoys those people who live in the past... (only joking on that one!).

 

[JamesT]

Standard fleet; also fits the new way of doing maintenance contracts. Longer overall lifespan to fit the maintenance contract. More operational flexibility (when using multiples of 5 car - the ECML will have 5s, won't it?). Annoys those people who live in the past... (only joking on that one!).

Wikipedia claims 13 9s and 10 5s for LNER.
Another advantage of having a homogeneous fleet is you can timetable it based on actual performance, rather than needing extra padding in case a slower unit is substituted onto a diagram.

 

[sprinterguy]

Both the locos and carriages are approaching thirty years old. That's a good innings for fast inter-city stock. The class 91 locos suffer from reliability issues, as you point out, which will only increase with age, and just replacing the locos would only serve to kick replacement of the coaching stock perhaps fifteen years down the road, potentially leaving a fleet of relatively modern locomotives with nothing to do.

Procuring a common fleet of Hitachi IETs provides standard performance characteristics for pathing and timetabling purposes, commonality of components for maintenance purposes and a complete train fleet with a similar life expectancy.

Wikipedia claims 13 9s and 10 5s for LNER.

There's a few more than that:

Class 800 bi-mode units
13 x 9-car units as HST replacement (Class 800/1)
10 x 5-car units for additional capacity/flexibility of operation (Class 800/2)

Class 801 electric units
12 x 5-car units for additional capacity (Class 801/1)
30 x 9-car units as IC225 replacement (Class 801/2)

 

[Journeyman]

Both the locos and carriages are approaching thirty years old. That's a good innings for fast inter-city stock. The class 91 locos suffer from reliability issues, as you point out, which will only increase with age, and just replacing the locos would only serve to kick replacement of the coaching stock perhaps fifteen years down the road, potentially leaving a fleet of relatively modern locomotives with nothing to do.

It's worth pointing out that 30 years only looks like a short lifespan when compared to the exceptionally long-lasting HSTs, which have proven very unusual in having such a long service life on frontline express services (albeit with some significant re-engineering). The Deltics only managed 20 years before they were pretty much thrashed to bits, and too expensive and unreliable to retain.

 

[sprinterguy]

It's worth pointing out that 30 years only looks like a short lifespan when compared to the exceptionally long-lasting HSTs, which have proven very unusual in having such a long service life on frontline express services (albeit with some significant re-engineering). The Deltics only managed 20 years before they were pretty much thrashed to bits, and too expensive and unreliable to retain.

Precisely: The same can be said for the class 87 locos that formed the backbone of WCML services for thirty years. While some have continued to operate at home and abroad since then, they're no longer witness to the same intensive squadron service. The mark 4s still have life in them, but any prospective future use, such as the TfW 'Premier' services, is unlikely to subject them to the same intensive regime as at present.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The IC225 replacement was mandated by the DfT so they could order another large tranche of IEPs from Hitachi (and boost Newton Aycliffe's order book).
This was done in advance of the ICEC franchise competition for a TOC to replace East Coast.
If left to the TOC to decide in the franchise bid, the order might have gone to somebody else (Alstom probably) and that didn't fit the DfT's view of the future.
It also simplified the maintenance position with an all-Hitachi fleet.
The winning TOC (which happened to be VTEC) therefore had no choice about the train fleet except on minor things like the branding and internal fittings.
All train procurement since then has been by TOCs/ROSCOs as part of franchise bids, but HS2 rolling stock is once again being procured directly by DfT.

 

[Journeyman]

The mark 4s still have life in them, but any prospective future use, such as the TfW 'Premier' services, is unlikely to subject them to the same intensive regime as at present.

That was, of course, always the way BR did things. The Deltics were hauling LNER design and Mark 1 coaches when they were new, and aircon Mark 2s when they were withdrawn. New rolling stock with premium features would last about 15 years on InterCity services before being cascaded downwards to slightly less strenuous duties on regional services.

 

[trebor79]

Yes I'm aware it was a DfT mandated thing. I guess I'm interested in what other possibilities were examined and why they were rejected.
Replacement on MML HSTs for a follow on order would have made more practical sense than replacing the Mk4s, for example.

 

[J-Rod]

Don't forget, governments/companies also like to pin their flag to New, Shiny Things. So when they work they can take all the credit and crow about how wonderful they are and a blessing to the human race.

(When they 'get it wrong', they can blame someone else, á la The Timetable Change of Doom)

 

[E_Reeves]

Is the MK4 and 91 West Coast plan still going ahead or being discussed? I haven't been keeping up with that...

 

[sprinterguy]

Is the MK4 and 91 West Coast plan still going ahead or being discussed? I haven't been keeping up with that...

The access rights for five return paths a day (With provision for a sixth) were agreed by the ORR in June to start sometime from September 2019 onwards, I haven't heard anything more since then:

http://www.alliancerail.co.uk/22-new-blackpool-to-london-rail-services-approved
NEW BLACKPOOL TO LONDON RAIL SERVICES APPROVED

7 June 2018

Access Rights for New direct journey opportunities daily to and from the Fylde coast to Nuneaton and Milton Keynes approved by ORR

Allows for Five return services per day from the Blackpool, Poulton-le-Fylde, Kirkham and Wesham to London with opportunity for a 6th return service

Would deliver 2630 additional daily seats to and from the capital and generate benefits for economies and communities

Alliance Rail Holdings (Alliance) welcomes the decision by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), to approve its application for a new direct passenger rail service between Blackpool North and London Euston.

The application was submitted by Great North Western Railway (GNWR), an Arriva company and a sister company of Grand Central, rated Britain’s top train company [1] for its services between the North East, Yorkshire and London.

The new services these Access Rights support would be able to start in September 2019 and would see Intercity train sets of a high standard introduced. These trains are planned to be formed from an electric locomotive, six passenger carriages (including first class and a buffet car) and a large luggage van.

Around 90 new jobs [2] would be created to provide this service, many based in the North West. This would help bolster the wider economy of the North particularly along the Fylde coast.

Alongside the provision of new direct services from Blackpool to London, passengers would benefit from the increased choice these services would provide at other stations on the West Coast Main Line (WCML).

The new service is planned to operate between Blackpool North and London Euston and to call at Poulton-le-Fylde, Kirkham and Wesham, Preston, Nuneaton and Milton Keynes Central.

Alliance said “We are delighted that the ORR has approved our application to deliver new direct rail services linking towns and cities between Blackpool and London. We expect that our plans wouldlead to growth of the market for rail travel, a better journey experience, innovation and lower fares. Passengers would also have the choice who they wish to travel with.”

 

[sjpowermac]

The leasing company owning the Mk4 stock did offer a full refurb plus the option to lease Taurus style (or equivalent) electric locos. I think the Class 91s were always going to end up for the bin. There was an article a few years ago in Modern Railways about the proposals.

 

[squizzler]

The 80x units ought to be more energy efficient and to cause less track damage than the Mk4+loco, which I understand has always been considered a heavy coach. Both these factors will perhaps reduce the running cost over the old stock.

 

[trebor79]

Don't know if an 80x with a 21l diesel engine and associated gubbins slung under most carriages is going to be lighter than a Mk4.

I doubt track wear is a major consideration when buying new stock.

 

[pdeaves]

I doubt track wear is a major consideration when buying new stock.

It will affect track access costs and thus operating cost. It is a major consideration.

 

[td97]

Don't know if an 80x with a 21l diesel engine and associated gubbins slung under most carriages is going to be lighter than a Mk4.

Just as well the 800 with '21l diesel engines and associated gubbins' isn't going to be replacing the MkIVs then

 

[trebor79]

It will affect track access costs and thus operating cost. It is a major consideration.

This must be balanced against the fact that the Mk4s are fully amortised by now whereas the IET contract is very expensive.
It's a while since I looked at the relevant documents but axle loading only makes up part of the formula for calculating track access charges. It might be something you use to judge one design against another in a competitive tender (so for example IET Vs HST2) but it's less useful when comparing purchasing brand new stock Vs a relatively cheap refurb of existing.

 

[jopsuk]

As a comparison, in Japan
300 Series Shinkansen: built 1990-1998, withdrawn and scrapped 2007-2012
400 Series Shinkansen: built 1992-1995, withdrawn and scrapped 2008-2010
E1 Series Shinkansen: built 1994-1995, withdrawn and scrapped 2012
700 Series Shinkansen: built 1997-2006, started to be withdrawn 2012
E2 Series Shinkansen: built 1997-2010, withdrawal started 2013
E3 Series Shinkansen: built 1995-2009, withdrawal started 2013
E4 Series Shinkansen: built 1997-2003, withdrawal started 2013

 

[hwl]

Yes I'm aware it was a DfT mandated thing. I guess I'm interested in what other possibilities were examined and why they were rejected.
Replacement on MML HSTs for a follow on order would have made more practical sense than replacing the Mk4s, for example.

Transforming the economics of the ECML for DfT and the TOC means adding:
a) more capacity at certain times, as path are limited that largely means adding more passengers per train so a 9car IET has 216m of usable length for passengers (and 225m for 2x5car IEP) vs 207m for a 225 set and an extra 92-95 seats over the Mk4 sets. (535 seats increasing to 627/630 seats (9/10 car))
b) more stops to certain services with out adversely affecting journey times, this means significantly improving acceleration (above loco hauled levels)
c) using more of the unused paths at quieter times /directions and adding extensions of services to location of the current routes which need more stock and Bi-modes for Lincoln etc.

The MML need better performance on diesel than the IET can currently offer (acceleration on Diesel even the 802s)

 

[a_c_skinner]

The MML need better performance on diesel than the IET can currently offer (acceleration on Diesel even the 802s)

Off topic but GROAN, another small fleet that will reduce operational flexibility. Happy days of BR with pretty much "go anywhere" rolling stock - or at least a good deal of it was.

 

[krus_aragon]

Standard fleet; also fits the new way of doing maintenance contracts. Longer overall lifespan to fit the maintenance contract. More operational flexibility (when using multiples of 5 car - the ECML will have 5s, won't it?). Annoys those people who live in the past... (only joking on that one!).

The mark 4s still have life in them, but any prospective future use, such as the TfW 'Premier' services, is unlikely to subject them to the same intensive regime as at present.

One can see a similar situation in the new Wales & Borders franchise. Why replace the 175s with new Civitys of similar size?

Well, Civitys are needed to replace the 158s and for added capacity anyway. A full replacement gives a homogenous fleet (except for partial ERTMS fitting), and end-gangways make doubled-up and splitting services more practical for passengers. The 175s are still usable, but have no clear use case once they go off-lease. It's just that this was a convenient and useful time to replace them.

 

[Ianno87]

Off topic but GROAN, another small fleet that will reduce operational flexibility. Happy days of BR with pretty much "go anywhere" rolling stock - or at least a good deal of it was.

IETs/802s (essentially the same thing with different diesel engine ratings) will become the new 'go anywhere' train, being used across Great Western, ECML, TPE, potentially MML and (I'd wager) eventually XC too.

 

[krus_aragon]

IETs/802s (essentially the same thing with different diesel engine ratings) will become the new 'go anywhere' train, being used across Great Western, ECML, TPE, potentially MML and (I'd wager) eventually XC too.

After all, if they can fit through Narberth tunnel, they'll fit anywhere!

 

[a_c_skinner]

Ho, Ho! I was replying to (with the groan) a contributor saying even the 802 on diesel wouldn't perform well enough for the MML. And yes, it would be good to have a big interoperable fleet, without the folly of such as the 222s not working with the 220 & 221s

 

[43096]

Ho, Ho! I was replying to (with the groan) a contributor saying even the 802 on diesel wouldn't perform well enough for the MML. And yes, it would be good to have a big interoperable fleet, without the folly of such as the 222s not working with the 220 & 221s

Interoperable? 802s are barred from working in multi with 800s currently as I understand it.

 

[a_c_skinner]

If I knew that it wasn't in my easily accessible storage! We do seem to be storing up modest inconsistencies that will be irritating when least expected and least wanted.