Uses for ex-Grand Central Mk4s?

[mmh]

Yup. They were designed for a life of thirty years, and they've worked for...thirty years. Let's not desperately look for a place to plonk a not-very-useful micro-fleet. They've served us well, it might just be the end.

There speaks someone who's obviously never lived in Wales.

(Except I believe they do, which makes it a really bizarre take on what can or can't happen)

 

[ABB125]

Maybe Manchester to Cardiff via Bristol but then InterWorks with tfw Manchester to Swansea services

I'm not sure that's a particularly sensible idea, not least due to the fact that there are two operators involved...

 

[Journeyman]

There speaks someone who's obviously never lived in Wales.

I know some are going there. That doesn't mean they automatically need more, and it's only temporary anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2020 ==

I would have thought that the unrefurbished Mk 4s would be scrapped in preference to the GC ones. But, I personally have no emotional attachment to them, so I don't really mind either way.

Yeah, I can't understand why the scrapping of thirty-year-old redundant rolling stock is seen as so tragic. I'm more concerned about the staff out of a job myself.

 

[stj]

Cardiff-London as planned.Undercut GWR with lower fares,better catering,no standing allowed.WAG may subsidise until things pick up.

 

[JonathanH]

York-Edinburgh with class 91's? To free up Voyagers and reduce diesel under the wires.

If that is going to happen, it would make more sense to just get people to change into LNER services at York.

 

[craigybagel]

If those sets were actually wanted by the franchised TOCs, surely they'd have never ended up at GC to begin with?

My heart says send the MKIVs to TfW, but my head is predicting a one way trip to Rotherham or Newport..... The 90s probably have more chance on the freight or something though I would have hoped.

 

[Iskra]

If that is going to happen, it would make more sense to just get people to change into LNER services at York.

Not if it's written in XC's franchise that they have to run trains on that line...

 

[ABB125]

If that is going to happen, it would make more sense to just get people to change into LNER services at York.

People don't like changing though. If there's still a direct XC train, most people will use it.
I suppose you could be sneaky and stick a 20 minute dwell time in at York, to trick journey planners into recommending a change, but the direct train still being available for those who want it (albeit less convenient than before).

 

[tbtc]

I'd like to propose a new service from the Grand Central depot to Rotherham.

Frequency: erm, just once, in one direction only

And, by Rotherham, I mean Booths yard!

They are 1980s carriages (not sentient trains from the Isle of Sodor) - if you can't accept that 1980s carriages are at the end of their life and want to invent new services to justify them, or want to amend established direct services just to we can eke another few years out of superannuated stock, then fair enough, but I think we need to accept that they don't have long left.

 

[Chiltern006]

TfW will probably take the attitude that they aren't refurbished to the correct spec, and thus they don't want them.

The Mk4s + DVT would be excellent for a non-electrified middle distance route if appropriate locos could be found.

what would be brilliant is if GC ran them on the ECML with a bi mode / diesel loco

 

[CW2]

I'd go for Swansea - Cardiff - Crewe - Manchester, Manchester - Chester - Holyhead, and Holyhead - Chester - Wrexham - Cardiff interworking as required.
Yes, they are 1980s carriages but have life left in them. They are still a lot better than some more modern stock - and a better ambiance than any DMU.

 

[ScotRail158725]

what would be brilliant is if GC ran them on the ECML with a bi mode / diesel loco

bi-mode loco hauled to Booths for them is the best option

 

[Chiltern006]

bi-mode loco hauled to Booths for them is the best option

with the new refurbishment the Mk4s are brilliant

 

[ScotRail158725]

They are still a lot better than some more modern stock - and a better ambiance than any DMU.

The thing is are the DfT or TOCs going to say “yes lets keep on older end of life stock because they have more ambience” or will they just send them to scrap because they’re life expired and there are better replacements? common sense would say the latter

 

[Bletchleyite]

with the new refurbishment the Mk4s are brilliant

They've just changed the seat covers and the carpet, haven't they?

 

[CW2]

The thing is are the DfT or TOCs going to say “yes lets keep on older end of life stock because they have more ambience” or will they just send them to scrap because they’re life expired and there are better replacements? common sense would say the latter

Except they aren't life expired, and the "better replacements" are less comfortable and have a high initial cost.

 

[The Planner]

Except they aren't life expired, and the "better replacements" are less comfortable and have a high initial cost.

People tend to look at whole life cost though.

 

[DB]

How so? A lot of the LNER counterparts have seen the cutters torch so there’s no reason that this cant happen or thats its a “waste”. Typical response to any traction being sent for scrap

Would be a shame to see them scrapped and I do think it would be a waste, but given that quite a few mk4s have been scrapped recently plus a likely downturn in traffic, it seems a distinct possibility. Difficult to see who might want them.

The ROSCO which owns them wouldn't have sent a load for scrap soon after withdrawal if they thought there were any likely takers.

 

[Journeyman]

Except they aren't life expired, and the "better replacements" are less comfortable and have a high initial cost.

Yes, they are life expired, and leasing trains makes the initial cost irrelevant to the users - it's borne by finance companies, leasing companies and rolling stock manufacturers. The TOC agrees a price and gets on with it.

 

[Anonymous10]

I know some are going there. That doesn't mean they automatically need more, and it's only temporary anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2020 ==



Yeah, I can't understand why the scrapping of thirty-year-old redundant rolling stock is seen as so tragic. I'm more concerned about the staff out of a job myself.

Some more like about half the fleet but besides the point they are only temporary due to new finally on order again besides the point the mk 4s would be appreciated

 

[Journeyman]

Some more like about half the fleet but besides the point they are only temporary due to new finally on order again besides the point the mk 4s would be appreciated

Who by? A few enthusiasts?

 

[DB]

Yes, they are life expired, and leasing trains makes the initial cost irrelevant to the users - it's borne by finance companies, leasing companies and rolling stock manufacturers. The TOC agrees a price and gets on with it.

Life-expired normally means completely knackered and/or well below the standard which is now regarded as acceptable by the public, like the Pacers. This is simply not the case with Mk4s - they are perfectly capable of continued use, but there are no likely takers for them. Just because stock is not wanted doesn't mean it's 'life expired' - and there are newer EMUs which could well go the same way as many of the Mk4s have.

 

[Energy]

If they waited they could possibly take lessons from tfw having adapted the mk4d for use even if it meant paying a small amount

Not much point, XC would only gain a few extra trains. If they were going for 90s + mk4s little work would be needed, far more is needed to make the mk4s work with 67s especially as these sets would just be an temporary solution to double up more voyagers and maybe replace HSTs. Electric spine would have allowed Bournemouth to Manchester Piccadilly to be electrified but 3rd rail from Bournemouth to Southampton.

 

[DB]

Not much point, XC would only gain a few extra trains. If they were going for 90s + mk4s little work would be needed, far more is needed to make the mk4s work with 67s especially as these sets would just be an temporary solution to double up more voyagers and maybe replace HSTs. Electric spine would have allowed Bournemouth to Manchester Piccadilly to be electrified but 3rd rail from Bournemouth to Southampton.

67s have a top permitted speed of 110mph (they are not allowed to do 125 due to the impact on the track), and are not great at accelerating.

The simple fact is that it's been known for years that the Mk4s would be coming available, and there have been no takers for a large part of the fleet. That's not likely to change if some which have had new seat covers and carpets and a coat of paint recently happen to become availble.

 

[cactustwirly]

How many sets would be needed to run Manchester-Birmingham using them on a self contained basis?

That's unworkable as there isn't enough platform capacity at Birmingham New Street.

 

[Energy]

what would be brilliant is if GC ran them on the ECML with a bi mode / diesel loco

No it wouldn't, they should really get some Hitachi AT300s if they need new stock or stick with their class 180s. With Covid it isn't a great idea for open access operators to spend loads on money when they are uncertain about their own future. With the AT300s another operator can easily take them on if GC run out of money.

67s have a top permitted speed of 110mph (they are not allowed to do 125 due to the impact on the track), and are not great at accelerating.

The simple fact is that it's been known for years that the Mk4s would be coming available, and there have been no takers for a large part of the fleet. That's not likely to change if some which have had new seat covers and carpets and a coat of paint recently happen to become availble.

I can't see why anyone would take them, GC took them as they were an easy choice for the WCML which would be quick to get and cheap, TfW probably took them as they already operated loco hauled class 67s and only need 3 sets. What advantage is there to pick loco hauled mk4s? Back when GC and TfW picked them you would have to wait quite a long time for Hitachi to build you some AT300s but now the waiting list is much shorter and they are supposedly pretty cheap due to IEP taking the development costs.

 

[DB]

What advantage is there to pick loco hauled mk4s? Back when GC and TfW picked them you would have to wait quite a long time for Hitachi to build you some AT300s but now the waiting list is much shorter and they are supposedly pretty cheap due to IEP taking the development costs.

New stock has been cheap recently due to interest rates, which may change with the way things are going.

It seems unlikely that operators will be taking on any extra stock at the moment though, beyond what's already committed, or operating new services.

 

[Journeyman]

Life-expired normally means completely knackered and/or well below the standard which is now regarded as acceptable by the public, like the Pacers. This is simply not the case with Mk4s - they are perfectly capable of continued use, but there are no likely takers for them. Just because stock is not wanted doesn't mean it's 'life expired' - and there are newer EMUs which could well go the same way as many of the Mk4s have.

They're life-expired in the sense that they were designed for a 30 year lifespan running on the East Coast, a job they've successfully completed. Yes, they have potential to be used further, but you have to ask whether that's sensible, given their age. They're at a point on the bathtub curve where operating costs and defects are about to inexorably head in the wrong direction.

I can see the appeal for open access, as they're cheap and easily available, so you can start a new service with minimal risk. If after a couple of years it's doing well, you can order some new trains. If it turns out to be a dead duck, you can cut your losses and walk away without having to abandon some very expensive new trains. However, as far as franchised TOCs are concerned, if I was in charge of one, I really wouldn't see the appeal, and everything suggested so far sounds like a solution looking for a problem, especially at a time when passenger numbers are well down.

 

[DB]

How many of the intended sets have been refurbished? Did they get them all done?

 

[tbtc]

I've not seen anything on here to convince me that there's going to be many homes for them - I can't see the Government/TOCs introducing brand new services to justify retaining some 1980s coaches or chopping/changing existing services to accommodate them. I don't think that the fact that a few quid has been spent on new seat covers is going to make much difference either.

XC have known that Mk4s would be on the market for many years (800/801s ordered in 2013?) without any serious attempts to take Mk4s onto the Cross Country network - so I don't think that they'll be rushing out to snap them up. There were about thirty long rakes, and TfW have only taken three short rakes, so there were plenty of others even if a handful were used on a Blackpool service.

The only place I could suggest for Mk4s would be to put them on the Kings Cross - Bradford/ Sunderland GC services to replace the "temperamental" 180s - but then this would create threads where people try to dream up a home for the (more modern - twenty first century) Adelantes!