Traxx in the UK

[RobShipway]

Well I was only going upon what I read, which was brief. I will probably see the headline properly tommorow; the RAIL website has no confirmation of this story (I checked). If it is significant I will do a thread, simplez.

Apologies for commenting on somethin earlier in this

The article in Rail if I am correct is about just replacing the Class 91 locos with a British gauge and built version of Traxx to be used with the existing Mk4 coaches, but another possibility is for the Traxx loco's to be used on services in the Greater Anglia franchise with services out of London Liverpool Street with the Mk3 coaches which personally I think is a better idea.

 

[Schnellzug]

they might cost rather less in maintenance and delay minutes if they did replace the 91s, though ...

 

[Zoe]

they might cost rather less in maintenance and delay minutes if they did replace the 91s, though ...

May as well go an order a fleet of EMUs if you are going to replace the 91s.

 

[Schnellzug]

--

Personally I'd like an Anglicised version of the Siemens Taurus, though, (like ÖBB class 1016/1116), they look so much more exciting, although I think that they're not permitted under current EU Legislation :roll:, hence the unattractive new ES64F4 version.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

May as well go an order a fleet of EMUs if you are going to replace the 91s.

But you'd save an awful lot of money by being able to continue to use the existing stock, and you could change locos to some new type of diesel (e.g. Vossloh Euro 4000) to carry on beyond the wires, which would surely be hugely more cost-effective than the replace-everything scorched earth policy that Departments for Transport always come up with.

 

[Daimler]

May as well go an order a fleet of EMUs if you are going to replace the 91s.

Why? The Mk4s are nowhere near life-expiry - why spend more than is necessary? Reliability issues lie with the locomotives, not the coaches.

 

[Zoe]

Why? The Mk4s are nowhere near life-expiry - why spend more than is necessary? Reliability issues lie with the locomotives, not the coaches.

The Mark 4 coaches are going to need replacing with EMUs eventually and there won't be any use for the locomotives once this is done. An order of 390s could reduce journey times north of Newcastle.

 

[tbtc]

I feel quite "Emperor's New Clothes" about Traxx - I honestly can't see what the fuss is about

 

[RobShipway]

I feel quite "Emperor's New Clothes" about Traxx - I honestly can't see what the fuss is about

Well, for me if it is built and built here in the UK it provides not only job security at Derby but it also provides a cheaper to keep some of the services running then spend some of the sums of money like has been spent on IEP.

 

[Schnellzug]

The Mark 4 coaches are going to need replacing with EMUs eventually and there won't be any use for the locomotives once this is done. An order of 390s could reduce journey times north of Newcastle.

if they're going to need replacing sometime, why insist on an EMU? By that time, the 390s, (which many consider unattractive) will be getting on for a 15 year old design themselves, probably? If we have to have something new, why not design something new and not an old design that Virgin specified because they wanted their trains to look like economy class in a 747?

 

[tbtc]

Well, for me if it is built and built here in the UK it provides not only job security at Derby but it also provides a cheaper to keep some of the services running then spend some of the sums of money like has been spent on IEP.

The other Traxx engines have been built overseas, just like the Bombardier 220/221/222s (Bruges?).

You'd only be building (around) thirty anyway, which isn't going to keep any production line open in the long term.

 

[Zoe]

if they're going to need replacing sometime, why insist on an EMU?

There's no good reason not to order an EMU. The 390s seem quite popular with the general public.

 

[tbtc]

if they're going to need replacing sometime, why insist on an EMU? By that time, the 390s, (which many consider unattractive) will be getting on for a 15 year old design themselves, probably? If we have to have something new, why not design something new and not an old design that Virgin specified because they wanted their trains to look like economy class in a 747?

The "Virgin designed the 390 interiors to look like planes" is complete Urban Legend, sorry.

Plus, given the problems that we have with diddy classes of stock (175/ 180 etc), it'd make sense to have fewer/ bigger classes, instead of reinventing the wheel every few years. Look at how BR managed with massive classes like 47s.

 

[sprinterguy]

Ordering Traxx UK locos to work with the existing mark 4 rakes is a silly idea. East Coast requires more electric sets as it is, and this will prove to be even more so the case if electrification to Aberdeen or potentially to Hull takes place. It would be much more sensible to order a single larger electric fleet to replace both 91s and mark 4s on the East Coast at the same time, rather than building a fleet of locos now that will be matched to the number of mark 4 rakes available, and then having to create an add-on order of locos for when the mark 4s are replaced to allow for an increase in fleet size.

 

[RobShipway]

Ordering Traxx UK locos to work with the existing mark 4 rakes is a silly idea. East Coast requires more electric sets as it is, and this will prove to be even more so the case if electrification to Aberdeen or potentially to Hull takes place. It would be much more sensible to order a single larger electric fleet to replace both 91s and mark 4s on the East Coast at the same time, rather than building a fleet of locos now that will be matched to the number of mark 4 rakes available, and then having to create an add-on order of locos for when the mark 4s are replaced to allow for an increase in fleet size.

It is not as silly idea as placing the class 225's on the GWML and placing the IEP trains for the GWML on EC which is suppose to save £50 million??? How, when any depot on the GWML would need to be re -tooled to cope with the Class 225's whereas as the cost of IEP has all ready included the cost to re - tool the depot's I believe??

If you do not use Traxx with the existing MK3 coaches, then you need to be thinking to replace the EC 125's with 8 car Class 222's with pantograph car as I don't thonk that the IEP 5 car bi - mode trains even with their longer coaches would be enough, if that is what is going to replace the EC 125's.

I can see a use for the Traxx loco's though on the East Anglia routes with the MK3 coaches there instead of the class 90's.

 

[tbtc]

Ordering Traxx UK locos to work with the existing mark 4 rakes is a silly idea. East Coast requires more electric sets as it is, and this will prove to be even more so the case if electrification to Aberdeen or potentially to Hull takes place. It would be much more sensible to order a single larger electric fleet to replace both 91s and mark 4s on the East Coast at the same time, rather than building a fleet of locos now that will be matched to the number of mark 4 rakes available, and then having to create an add-on order of locos for when the mark 4s are replaced to allow for an increase in fleet size.

Agreed.

Given the number of East Coast HSTs that spend their times under the wire all day (plus scope for additional services) we really need a bigger order of trains for the East Coast.

In theory the IEP idea (with some bi-mode trains) sounds right. BUT I'm not in favour of the (proposed) train lengths

 

[Zoe]

I don't thonk that the IEP 5 car bi - mode trains even with their longer coaches would be enough

If they run as 2 x 5 units then that will be a 10 coach train.

 

[sprinterguy]

It is not as silly idea as placing the class 225's on the GWML and placing the IEP trains for the GWML on EC which is suppose to save £50 million??? How, when any depot on the GWML would need to be re -tooled to cope with the Class 225's whereas as the cost of IEP has all ready included the cost to re - tool the depot's I believe??

If you do not use Traxx with the existing MK3 coaches, then you need to be thinking to replace the EC 125's with 8 car Class 222's with pantograph car as I don't thonk that the IEP 5 car bi - mode trains even with their longer coaches would be enough, if that is what is going to replace the EC 125's.

I can see a use for the Traxx loco's though on the East Anglia routes with the MK3 coaches there instead of the class 90's.

The IEP does indeed include the development of servicing and maintenance facilities (With the main depot at North Pole) as part of its' costs, so moving the IC225s to the GWML would be a silly idea from that point of view. However, if the IEP order was revised so that the ECML received the extra electric sets that it needs as part of the first order (Not that I'm saying that that should be the case), then it's the only logical solution I can think of for the continued use of twenty five year old trainsets.

Replacing the East Coast HSTs with bi-mode Meridians released from the MML should that route be electrified is the route I would go down, as I am against the concept of new build bi-mode rolling stock. Specifically, I would allocate to East Coast the six 7-car Meridians lengthened to 9-cars with a pair of pantograph cars for the longer distance journeys, and the four former Hull Trains 222/1s lengthened to five coaches for the shorter distance runs, assuming that EC could acquire a handful of additional electric sets to cover the four HST diagrams that are currently completely under the wires.