Will 225s replace Voyagers?

[Nym]

Wonder if GC might be intrested in them, if one could change locomotives at York or Northallerton (Provided they do the station improvments) and Doncaster...?

 

[ainsworth74]

Seeing as GC are on record as wanting more 180s I doubt it. Also it would massively complicate their operations for what gain?

 

[Nym]

Seeing as GC are on record as wanting more 180s I doubt it. Also it would massively complicate their operations for what gain?

Very little...

I'd much rather see them get fitted with ERTMS and being kept with EC on the limited stop services, still... DfT knows best eh?

 

[ainsworth74]

still... DfT knows best eh?

Quite!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I was more thinking that they might work for secondary (non-EC) services which share the ECML. Assuming that they can run at 140mph, it might make pathing easier, helping overall capacity on the line.

The Mk4 stock might be able to run at 140mph but there will be nothing to haul them.
Part of the rationale for EC IEPs is to avoid the cost of maintaining/upgrading the 91s, just for existing 125mph services.
Nobody is going to consider the 91s for 140mph running at 30 years old when they come off EC.
In any case there are no 140mph routes.

 

[asylumxl]

Why does the MML keep getting suggested for the 225s, normal passengers aren't going to be happy with older trains with slower acceleration after years of disruption, than currently. It is a bad idea to move them anywhere as the ECML is the only suitable route for 225s.
Outside of enthusiasts the vast majority of EMT passengers prefer meridians to HSTs for a number of reasons, so there will be absolutely no problem with it getting EMUs.
Personally I'd like to see the MML get a mix of full length and 'baby' pendolino or anything other than 225s or IEP.

Here here!

 

[Hairy Bear]

Here here!

Except we need IEP so that we can use the diversion routes toton,erewash, beighton,castle donn and manton.
They are the future not 225's.

 

[asylumxl]

Except we need IEP so that we can use the diversion routes toton,erewash, beighton,castle donn and manton.
They are the future not 225's.

Any bi-mode design would work. I was kind of hoping the 222s would become bi-mode as I personally think they are perfectly suited. Did you miss out Corby/Oakham diversions?

 

[bb21]

Corby/Oakham is included under Manton.

I too don't think 225s are the answer for MML, but god no, please, no Pendolinos. Horrible stuff.

 

[The Ham]

Any bi-mode design would work. I was kind of hoping the 222s would become bi-mode as I personally think they are perfectly suited. Did you miss out Corby/Oakham diversions?

If it were possible to make them bi-modal cost effectively then the likely end result would be changing from and to (if >5 coaches requires 2 patograph vehicles):
6x7 coach sets to 6x10 coach sets
17x5 coach sets to 11x7 coach sets
4x4 coach sets to 10x5 coach sets

That would enable there to be services run as 5, 7, 10 or 12 coaches in length where the 12 coach services were formed of a 5 and 7 coach set.

It would require the construction of 44 pantograph coaches or an increase in the number of coaches in the fleet of about 30%.

However it is proberbly no more likely that it would be cost effective to do so than it was to do the Voyagers, although it would produce a better mix of set lengths than the Voyagers.

 

[Nym]

Just as a note for you, each car needs '540kW' or approximately 600kVA, the biggest transformer you can fit under a railway car is around '2.6MW' or around 2.9kVA. (p.f. 0.9) so one transformer can feed slightly over four cars....

 

[Yew]

Its quite a conundrum really, lots of good quality stock, however its limited by being a electric LHCS. Maybe HT would be interested in running them to hull? Short formed with seating in the DVT? Other than that I can only forsee them going to the MML (as an imperfect solution) or to GA with 90's/traxx instead of a major refurbishment of their MK3's.

Or, maybe an Independent Scotland would be interested in some services to london?

 

[NotATrainspott]

If we're really that stuck for ideas why not shorten them and use them to replace the 350/4s on the Scottish TPX routes? Presumably with all the electrification going on direct services to Liverpool and other Northern cities (a la Glasgow Trains) wouldn't be out of the question either. Since there's nothing else bar freight and EPS125 services between Motherwell and Carlisle I can't see their reduced acceleration being a massive problem.

 

[Manchester77]

Scottish TPE routes should probably go to ICWC and be operated by baby pendos.
They'd be limited to 110 mph anyway due to their lack of tilt.

 

[Hairy Bear]

Corby/Oakham is included under Manton.

I too don't think 225s are the answer for MML, but god no, please, no Pendolinos. Horrible stuff.

No only the branch between Kettering and Corby will be electrified not the syston to corby bit. It will be completed first by 2017 .

 

[Rhydgaled]

Are the 225 sets still 140mph-capable (if/when ERTMS finally arrives, and they were retrofitted with it)?

If so, and they still have some good life remaining in them, something involving 140mph running on ECML / WCML would seem to be the best use of them. It would be kinda nice if they could finally run at their design speed before they are retired!

I agree with this. The tilt retro-fit isn't going to happen now, so for 140mph running you need either the ECML or perhaps the GWML. But probably the ECML. The 91's data panels say the top speed is 140mph.

ECML? Complete non-starter. The only reason future use of the stock is up for discussion at all is that they are being completely replaced on the ECML with IEP.

That doesn't mean replacing them with IEP is a good idea. The 270 IEP vehicles ordered to replace IC225s could be better used elsewhere. Saving us from a combination of the 'sparks effect' and the 'princess effect' by lengthening all those 5-car IEPs to 9-car (perhaps even some 10-car sets for the East Coast) would be a good one. Or send the IEPs to XC or MML instead if guage clearance wouldn't be too expensive and/or frieght guage enhancments are combined for clearance for IEP.

Why does the MML keep getting suggested for the 225s, normal passengers aren't going to be happy with older trains with slower acceleration after years of disruption, than currently. It is a bad idea to move them anywhere as the ECML is the only suitable route for 225s.

In their current form yes, the IC225s are best where they are. Anywhere else would require scrapping the 91s (about 10 years before life expiry) and replacing them with new locos because the lower top speeds and higher number of stops on other routes mean the 91's probably wouldn't keep time. That would be a huge waste in my opinion.

I'd much rather see them get fitted with ERTMS and being kept with EC on the limited stop services, still... DfT knows best eh?

Eversholt were proposing an upgrade with ERTMS as well. Lets have that and find another use for the IEP carriages ordered to replace the IC225s.

 

[tbtc]

In their current form yes, the IC225s are best where they are. Anywhere else would require scrapping the 91s (about 10 years before life expiry) and replacing them with new locos because the lower top speeds and higher number of stops on other routes mean the 91's probably wouldn't keep time. That would be a huge waste in my opinion

Who is talking about scrapping 91s?

(apart from scaremongers like you)

 

[Rhydgaled]

Who is talking about scrapping 91s?

(apart from scaremongers like you)

What other use would there be for them if the IC225s are replaced on the ECML? Class 90s would probably outrun them on routes with lower linespeeds and/or more stations stops, like London - Norwich.

 

[tbtc]

What other use would there be for them if the IC225s are replaced on the ECML? Class 90s would probably outrun them on routes with lower linespeeds and/or more stations stops, like London - Norwich.

They could run on the MML, they could run Manchester - Southampton, they could run Manchester - Glasgow/Edinburgh, they could run Newcastle - Liverpool...

They may not be ideal for these duties in your eyes, but they could do them - certainly no serious suggestion that they are going to get withdrawn

 

[The Ham]

What other use would there be for them if the IC225s are replaced on the ECML? Class 90s would probably outrun them on routes with lower linespeeds and/or more stations stops, like London - Norwich.

It would of course depend on how much they are pulling, as if the 91's were formed up with 2 coaches less that's less weight (about 80t) to move around. Which would then make them a bit quicker off the mark.

 

[Rhydgaled]

They could run on the MML, they could run Manchester - Southampton, they could run Manchester - Glasgow/Edinburgh, they could run Newcastle - Liverpool...

They may not be ideal for these duties in your eyes, but they could do them - certainly no serious suggestion that they are going to get withdrawn

They could do them alright, the question is whether they (being geared for 140mph with, apparently, poor acceleration at low speeds) will maintain current timings anywhere else. If they can't keep to current timings elsewhere, which some here seem to suspect, a different loco will be needed (hence scrapping 91s) if the mrk4s are to be used if they are thrown off the ECML.

 

[HSTEd]

How would a 91 do on the Sleepers?

Would allow them to have a dedicated pool of locomotives.
Could put some Mark 4 vehicles into the formation to displace the Mk3 seated vehicles too.

 

[rebmcr]

How would a 91 do on the Sleepers?

Would allow them to have a dedicated pool of locomotives.
Could put some Mark 4 vehicles into the formation to displace the Mk3 seated vehicles too.

Well the Great Western sleeper is non-electrified, and will remain so at the western end. Same with the Caledonian at its northern end.

 

[D365]

Caledonian is to become a separate franchise, whilst Riviera is supposed to remain part of GW for now. Don't know how feasible it would be to set up a common pool. But in short, both will still require diesel fleets, at least for the 'outer' route.

 

[Eagle]

Well the Great Western sleeper is non-electrified, and will remain so at the western end. Same with the Caledonian at its northern end.

The Highland Caledonian is run with electric traction as far as Edinburgh, where the train is portioned and becomes diesel-hauled. There's no reason why that can't continue if 91s were to replace 90s. And perhaps something similar on the Night Riviera with a swap at Bristol.


Another thing that's just occurred to me is that 91s could also be used by freight operators on the electric spine. Okay, it's not the most suitable loco, but it's cheaper than buying new electric locos.

 

[D365]

The Highland Caledonian is run with electric traction as far as Edinburgh, where the train is portioned and becomes diesel-hauled. There's no reason why that can't continue if 91s were to replace 90s. And perhaps something similar on the Night Riviera with a swap at Bristol.

Sounds alright, if this was at all to happen.

Another thing that's just occurred to me is that 91s could also be used by freight operators on the electric spine. Okay, it's not the most suitable loco, but it's cheaper than buying new electric locos.

Already discussed, elsewhere. Not the greatest idea, it seems.

 

[Manchester77]

Could 91s not be used for sleepers running flat end first with the 90s transferring to freight workings?

 

[ainsworth74]

And perhaps something similar on the Night Riviera with a swap at Bristol.

You loose flexibility doing that though. One of the advantages of the present system is that there are a myriad of routes to/from the South West for a diesel hauled sleeper. Indeed I believe this is part of the reason why Bristol was removed as a calling point.

 

[RobShipway]

The Highland Caledonian is run with electric traction as far as Edinburgh, where the train is portioned and becomes diesel-hauled. There's no reason why that can't continue if 91s were to replace 90s. And perhaps something similar on the Night Riviera with a swap at Bristol.


Another thing that's just occurred to me is that 91s could also be used by freight operators on the electric spine. Okay, it's not the most suitable loco, but it's cheaper than buying new electric locos.

I think as mentioned earlier in this thread, the Mk4's even with doing the sleepers would be better being pulled by a Traxx locomotive or something that can be used as an electric locomotive under the wires, but has a diesel engine with enough power to pull the train along without the need for wires.

Another alternative, would be to have an engine similar to Traxx, but instead of the last distance diesel power you have battery operated power as is going to be tried out on a class 379 where it runs under the wires on battery power with the pantograph being raised.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'll never understand why people seem to think that Traxx could haul trains any distance other than 'the last mile' and certainly not at any useful speed...