Cascading: What train will go where after electrification?

[Haydn1971]

I've no problem with longer Lee, just demonstrating the costs based upon "possible" train lengths - longer will equal higher fleet purchase costs

 

[physics34]

Which of course gives them a get out if there is never any stock available!

If memory serves me right the Dec 2016 date come from Network Rail who said they were looking try and lengthen the platforms by Dec 2016 as that appeared to be what the bidders for the franchise wanted.

I also seem to recall it has been suggested here that London Midland may have some spare Class 170s or 172s or maybe some that werent spare but were coming off to lease end and could then move south. Possibly aided by both franchises being owned by Govia

Anyway can we solve the Uckfield issue first please as those are the ones that affect me!

as mentioned, if the platforms all get extended the SDO (selective door operation) isnt required then the extra units may not neccesarily be 170/172s, and 171s are compatable with all class 15x/16x units, except for the coupler and the SDO. Could easily be some 165/166s for example.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

One problem overlooked with using 225's on the MML is the platform space occupied by the locomotive and DVT. With only four East Midlands platforms at St Pancras using full length 225's would occupy all four platforms and require quick turn arounds, compared to the current setup where two 222's can occupy the same platform.

A quick Wikipedia search indicates East Midlands Trains currently operate a fleet of

• 24 Class 43 Power cars
• 108 Mark III carriages
• 6x 7 car Class 222's
• 17x 5 car Class 222's
• 4x 4 car Class 222's

The 222 fleet in total compromises of 54 driving vehicles and 131 intermediate vehicles.

Can anyone clarify how many HST's EMT actually operate an d what how many carriages are in each formation (the number of mark III's doesn't equal 12 HST's unless some are spares)?

EDIT:- Whoops are the in 12 9 carriage formation? (12x9 =108)

 

[edwin_m]

I really struggle to buy that HS2 will do anything to MML & ECML services. Hardly anyone in Nottingham, Derby and maybe Sheffield are going to go out of city to get on a more expensive train and to save minutes (which will be contradictory as it will take longer to get to the station for most people). To be honest I wouldn't even have the East Midlands branch of HS2. I see HS2 as increasing capacity for the WCML, nothing more.

The current assumption (yes it may change) is that fares on HS2 would be similar to those on the classic network. But otherwise I largely agree with you.

 

[Qwerty133]

One problem overlooked with using 225's on the MML is the platform space occupied by the locomotive and DVT. With only four East Midlands platforms at St Pancras using full length 225's would occupy all four platforms and require quick turn arounds, compared to the current setup where two 222's can occupy the same platform.

A quick Wikipedia search indicates East Midlands Trains currently operate a fleet of

• 24 Class 43 Power cars
• 108 Mark III carriages
• 6x 7 car Class 222's
• 17x 5 car Class 222's
• 4x 4 car Class 222's

The 222 fleet in total compromises of 54 driving vehicles and 131 intermediate vehicles.

Can anyone clarify how many HST's EMT actually operate an d what how many carriages are in each formation (the number of mark III's doesn't equal 12 HST's unless some are spares)?

EDIT:- Whoops are the in 12 9 carriage formation? (12x9 =108)

The HSTS are in 8 coach trains
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It has been said elsewhere that there are considerable sections of the WCML that could be operated at 125mph without tilt, there are also considerable sections where 110mph or less is the maximum speed regardless of tilt - I'm not convinced that running non-tilt on the WCML in particular on the most congested sections which are already shared with numerous slower local and freight services is going to make any impact overall.

If by most congested you mean the south, the slower services run on different lines (the slows).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

225s would work on Anglia but I think they want better acceleration to have ''Norwich in 90'' Currently its about the same time to go via Cambridge. The 222s would be good for Norwich to Liverpool but better on London to Penzance. I find it strange the Multiple Units are soo popular, don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of the Meridians but Loco Hauled brings flexibility that DMUs/EMUs don't, just look that the Deutsche Bahn 101 class - its incredible.

So, it would be better to increase journey times on one route, but reduce them on another, than to maintain both lots...
Why not build new diesel locos, to haul the mark 4s between Paddington and Penzance, and put the 222s on Liverpool to Norwich (except the 7 cars which should stay on the MML to enable extensions to Leads, Scarborough, Lincoln, Skegness, York and to Sheffield down the Erewash valley).
The DFT don't want to build anymore new DMUs, and pacers could do with being withdrawn (even if they technically don't have to be), so other options need to be considered, and releasing the 158s from Liverpool to Norwich should be able to standardise East Midlands local services to 158s and 156s, and the 153s and some of the 156s can go to Northern to withdraw pacers.
Older trains won't be appreciated on the MML, and I'm aware of people who don't want electrification at all as it is 'less reliable', based on seeing disruption on the ECML.
I know theirs people on this forum, who'd argue agaisnt pacers being withdrawn in 3014, even though they'd be 1030 years old, but trains shouldn't be kept because enthusiasts like them, if they can't provide the same level/ frequency/ quality/ of service, and journey times is part of that.

 

[Haydn1971]

One problem overlooked with using 225's on the MML is the platform space occupied by the locomotive and DVT. With only four East Midlands platforms at St Pancras using full length 225's would occupy all four platforms and require quick turn arounds, compared to the current setup where two 222's can occupy the same platform.

Someone else said this several months back, but if a train operating company can't run 5 services per hour from 4 platforms, they should pack up and go home now !

 

[MidlandMainlie]

The HSTS are in 8 coach trains
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thanks but that doesn't explain why EMT have 108 Mark III carriages (12 x 8 = 96 carriages)

 

[Manchester77]

So, it would be better to increase journey times on one route, but reduce them on another, than to maintain both lots...
Why not build new diesel locos, to haul the mark 4s between Paddington and Penzance, and put the 222s on Liverpool to Norwich (except the 7 cars which should stay on the MML to enable extensions to Leads, Scarborough, Lincoln, Skegness, York and to Sheffield down the Erewash valley).

- That's actually a very good idea but I doubt it'd happen, more likely 9 car bi-modes for Penzance services
- Do the 222s have enough capacity to match the 4 car 158s? It's just whenever 220s/221s have been suggested for that route it's been dismissed because they don't have anywhere enough capacity to replace the sprinters.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Someone else said this several months back, but if a train operating company can't run 5 services per hour from 4 platforms, they should pack up and go home now !

But it would be less flexible than now plus you haven't explained how to overcome the acceleration issues of the 91's vs 222's/new EMU's.

 

[Manchester77]

Thanks but that doesn't explain why EMT have 108 Mark III carriages (12 x 8 = 96 carriages)

Spares?

Intercity trains require longer periods of restocking and breaks for the crew. It's not like some commuter service where you can turn each train in under 10 minutes, you've got to send a cleaner through picking up people's crap, restock the trolley / buffet, give the crew a break from the 2+ hours journey they've just had. Just because southeastern can run 20+tph from 6 platforms at Charing X doesn't mean they could do it if they were intercity trains.

 

[Haydn1971]

I know theirs people on this forum, who'd argue agaisnt pacers being withdrawn in 3014, even though they'd be 1030 years old, but trains shouldn't be kept because enthusiasts like them, if they can't provide the same level/ frequency/ quality/ of service, and journey times is part of that.

To clarify, I'm all for new rolling stock, I'd gladly see the 14x & 15x fleets scrapped tomorrow, however I recognise that the economics of doing that would result in fares being doubled to pay for the new stock to replace the scrapped stuff.

My thoughts on transferring the 225 fleet to MML are based purely on the longer term view that ECML and WCML will have a largely reduced train requirement once HS2 goes operational. To procure lots of new EMU Express Trains in time for MML being wired in 2020 will mean that we will have a glut of 10 year old 125mph EMU Express Trains in 2030 when HS2 starts taking the strain - at this time, operations on the ECML, MML & WCML south of the M62 will drop to a significantly reduced express service picking up places not serviced by HS2, supplemented by more local and semi fast type services which will be much like the 345/350/387/700 fleets rather than the 220/221/390/800 fleets

I'd love to see new 800/801's on MML in 2020, but looking further ahead it's a case of making sure we don't as a nation waste money on stock that isn't going to return a good 30-40 year service. I've said this before, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next order for express trains is for HS2 stock in the mid 2020's, rather than anything for existing 125mph services. With the 390/800/801 fleets forming the bulk of post 125mph express services on ECML/MML/WCML/XC past 2030, rolling into replacement of the 390 fleet soon after.

 

[Manchester77]

To clarify, I'm all for new rolling stock, I'd gladly see the 14x & 15x fleets scrapped tomorrow, however I recognise that the economics of doing that would result in fares being doubled to pay for the new stock to replace the scrapped stuff.

I'd love to see new 800/801's on MML in 2020, but looking further ahead it's a case of making sure we don't as a nation waste money on stock that isn't going to return a good 30-40 year service. I've said this before, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next order for express trains is for HS2 stock in the mid 2020's, rather than anything for existing 125mph services. With the 390/800/801 fleets forming the bulk of post 125mph express services on ECML/MML/WCML/XC past 2030, rolling into replacement of the 390 fleet soon after.

- There's nothing bloody wrong with the sprinters!! Why do they need scrapping right now have you seen how good most TOCs can make them look?
- Think you're one of the few there mate post HS2 most intercity stock will just get shuffled around as different services get replaced by HS2 services. I'm guessing that we'll see more TPE style services which are interregional /urban but use 1/4 and 3/4 door layouts but have been given a higher spec than standard commuter stock would have.

 

[Haydn1971]

But it would be less flexible than now plus you haven't explained how to overcome the acceleration issues of the 91's vs 222's/new EMU's.

No one has yet confirmed with any degree of authority that acceleration differences will make any difference to actual timetables - there's been lots of people saying that the Meridians accelerate faster than a 91+9x Mk4's but as suggested elsewhere, what happens when you reduce to say 8, 7 or even 6 Mk4 carriages. And indeed, how much of a time difference is there between the two and what's the acceleration curve like along the whole speed range, does one outperform the other all the way, is one better higher or lower on the speed range. As I've said above, the £540-700m cost vs a few extra minutes saving against using 91's plus Mk4 is going to be a big deal for any incoming government post 2015 elections

 

[Haydn1971]

- There's nothing bloody wrong with the sprinters!! Why do they need scrapping right now have you seen how good most TOCs can make them look?

The 158/159's really are the exception, I've used the EMT ones which are quite nice, but on the whole, my experiences of the 14x/15x fleets has rather been tainted by badly maintained Northern fleet experiences, the TPE 170/185's are a pleasure by comparison... When they aren't full !

-- Think you're one of the few there mate post HS2 most intercity stock will just get shuffled around as different services get replaced by HS2 services. I'm guessing that we'll see more TPE style services which are interregional /urban but use 1/4 and 3/4 door layouts but have been given a higher spec than standard commuter stock would have.

Yes, I'd expect that too, more inter regional crowding on under sized trains

 

[Manchester77]

The 158/159's really are the exception, I've used the EMT ones which are quite nice, but on the whole, my experiences of the 14x/15x fleets has rather been tainted by badly maintained Northern fleet experiences, the TPE 170/185's are a pleasure by comparison... When they aren't full !

Yes, I'd expect that too, more inter regional crowding on under sized trains

The northern fleet of sprinters aren't really that bad, it's mainly the Ashbourne seated 150s which give them a bad name. The FNW refurbished 150s are good, they're clean and comfortable and not that bad to be on for longish periods of time. FGW have a similarly refurbished set of units which have also been soundproofed and they are very good. The 156s are fine, the GA refurbished units are probably how the entire fleet will go with PIS and the big toilets. I understand what you mean when you're comparing them to TPEs modern fleet!

Something to look forward to!

 

[LLivery]

Someone else said this several months back, but if a train operating company can't run 5 services per hour from 4 platforms, they should pack up and go home now !

Exactly its quite pathetic, I would like to see 6 or 7tph, 20ish minute turn around shouldn't be impossible. Plus I'm sure there is a siding right in the St Pancras approach.

So, it would be better to increase journey times on one route, but reduce them on another, than to maintain both lots...
Why not build new diesel locos, to haul the mark 4s between Paddington and Penzance, and put the 222s on Liverpool to Norwich (except the 7 cars which should stay on the MML to enable extensions to Leads, Scarborough, Lincoln, Skegness, York and to Sheffield down the Erewash valley).

I wasn't saying that. I would gladly have new locos and I wouldn't mind new trains for the MML. But I'm also thinking about cost and likelihood. Journey times wont be much slower at all with 225s seeing HSTs often run stopping services to Leeds and even Corby pretty much to Meridian timings. The difference won't be noticeable to really anyone. Infact according to timetables non-stop 180s do Doncaster to King's Cross in 1hr 44 while 225s do the same journey in 1hr 47 with a stop at Peterborough.

I know theirs people on this forum, who'd argue agaisnt pacers being withdrawn in 3014, even though they'd be 1030 years old, but trains shouldn't be kept because enthusiasts like them, if they can't provide the same level/ frequency/ quality/ of service, and journey times is part of that.

I'm certainly am not one of them. I'd scrap them & 313s tomorrow if I could

 

[edwin_m]

Exactly its quite pathetic, I would like to see 6 or 7tph, 20ish minute turn around shouldn't be impossible. Plus I'm sure there is a siding right in the St Pancras approach.

The morning peak hour maximum appears to be 6 arriving between 0900 and 1000. I haven't checked the evening peak though.

As well as pure turnaround activities, the use of several different train types increases average turnarounds, because the earliest working an arriving train could return on might need a different type of train. St Pancras has three main types, plus a couple of 4-car Meridians and the complication of 4-car and 5-car Meridans doubling up on some workings. The worst case is the off-peak Nottingham HSTs which have to wait for just over an hour.

This suggests that a uniform fleet of medium-distance EMUs, say 5-car with end gangways, might allow shorter turnarounds and therefore higher frequencies than a mix of EMUs and 225 sets. The other constraint is when paths are available through the Thameslink area, for which a slightly lower running speed (closer to the 100mph max of the 700s) might be the price to pay for a better frequency. Re-signalling for electrification should remove the constraint north of Bedford, which is largely down to the very long signal blocks.

 

[Manchester77]

How does it work now with 222s and HSTs? Could that not be in some way replicated by Mark IV sets and new EMUs?

I'm not saying that's the best idea just curious. I agree with edwin_m a homogenous EMU fleet would work best, I think it was Alstom who are reported to be hoping to offer a 118 mph EMU which would hopefully have gangways. Might be a contender for the MML.

 

[edwin_m]

How does it work now with 222s and HSTs? Could that not be in some way replicated by Mark IV sets and new EMUs?

I'm not saying that's the best idea just curious. I agree with edwin_m a homogenous EMU fleet would work best, I think it was Alstom who are reported to be hoping to offer a 118 mph EMU which would hopefully have gangways. Might be a contender for the MML.

Generally the 7-car 222s work the Sheffield fasts, the HSTs work the Nottingham fasts and the semi-fasts are 5-car 222s. At peaks the 5-cars double up, some extra HSTs work tidal workings and a few other things change. So in principle the 225 sets could take up the HST and 7-car workings with the EMUs doing the 5-car workings, but this would be unlikely to deliver any more than the five per hour that is achieved in the off-peak today.

 

[Class 170101]

and put the 222s on Liverpool to Norwich

I have said this before and will repeat here again the 222s lose more time between Norwich and Peterborough than they gain between Peterborough and Grantham due to the severe Sprinter Differentials between Peterborough and Norwich.

60/75 between Ely and Peterborough and a mixture of 40/75 and 75/90 between Ely and Norwich. I believe a test was carried out between Norwich and Nottingham and train lost around 15 minutes over the Sprinters.

 

[The Ham]

To clarify, I'm all for new rolling stock, I'd gladly see the 14x & 15x fleets scrapped tomorrow, however I recognise that the economics of doing that would result in fares being doubled to pay for the new stock to replace the scrapped stuff.

My thoughts on transferring the 225 fleet to MML are based purely on the longer term view that ECML and WCML will have a largely reduced train requirement once HS2 goes operational. To procure lots of new EMU Express Trains in time for MML being wired in 2020 will mean that we will have a glut of 10 year old 125mph EMU Express Trains in 2030 when HS2 starts taking the strain - at this time, operations on the ECML, MML & WCML south of the M62 will drop to a significantly reduced express service picking up places not serviced by HS2, supplemented by more local and semi fast type services which will be much like the 345/350/387/700 fleets rather than the 220/221/390/800 fleets

I'd love to see new 800/801's on MML in 2020, but looking further ahead it's a case of making sure we don't as a nation waste money on stock that isn't going to return a good 30-40 year service. I've said this before, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next order for express trains is for HS2 stock in the mid 2020's, rather than anything for existing 125mph services. With the 390/800/801 fleets forming the bulk of post 125mph express services on ECML/MML/WCML/XC past 2030, rolling into replacement of the 390 fleet soon after.

As has been pointed out before the 390's will be about 30 years old when HS2 opens, so if there were too many 125mph trains on the network then it is likely that these would be the trians which would be put into retirement early (or possibly a reduction in the number of coaches in use by redusing formation lengths).

However, it is more likely that it would allow more units to cascade so there were more more EMU's (and/or Bi-modal's) on XC services which should have been significantly wired up by then (even if it hadn't got any further SW than Bristol).

 

[sprinterguy]

Thanks but that doesn't explain why EMT have 108 Mark III carriages (12 x 8 = 96 carriages)

East Midlands Trains don’t operate 108 mark 3 carriages, they have 84, formed in 10 x 8 carriage rakes, with 4 spare vehicles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It has been said elsewhere that there are considerable sections of the WCML that could be operated at 125mph without tilt, there are also considerable sections where 110mph or less is the maximum speed regardless of tilt - I'm not convinced that running non-tilt on the WCML in particular on the most congested sections which are already shared with numerous slower local and freight services is going to make any impact overall.

The fast lines are not “already shared with numerous slower local and freight services” though, they’re confined to the slows. The southern stretch of the West Coast main line, where traffic levels are densest, essentially operates as two twin-track railways: You start putting more, slower, 110mph services out on the fasts and eventually you either end up having to slow everything else down or start taking paths out of the fast line capacity. That seems rather a retrograde step in my opinion.

Having separate 110mph and 125mph train fleets working the Intercity services on the West Coast main line would also cause headaches for diagramming purposes when things go wrong: A 110mph set could not be stepped up to cover a 125mph service without losing time en route.

It’s also worth noting that even on sections of track with a maximum speed of 110mph or below, tilting trains are still able to negotiate the curves faster than non-tilting stock: It’s not all about maintaining 125mph for as long as possible, but also reducing energy consumption and brake wear of the trains by smoothing the speed profile of the route, and tightening up journey times by those means.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As the 'tourist trains' talked about by transport Scotland?

Wouldn't the 222s be best suited to either London-Penzance (I'm assuming GW aren't getting any bi-mode IEPs) or Scotland (could they be refurbished as these 'tourist trains' that are required in the next franchise).

I suspect that there is some confusion creeping in over the rolling stock initiatives contained within the Scotrail Invitation to Tender: Presumably 225 sets or class 222 units are more likely to be suggested for the improved Intercity services initiative that covers the Edinburgh/Glasgow to Aberdeen/ Inverness, and Aberdeen to Inverness, routes, not for the “tourist trains” on the likes of the West Highland line. I can think of few ways more effective at bumping up operating costs to unacceptable levels on the West Highland than deploying fuel-thirsty, overlength 222s on the line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oops forgot to mention one set spare, although at 9 carriages long you cold take one carriage from each rake to make 34x 8 carriage rakes and 1x 7 car rake which would help them to fit into more platforms without lengthening.

No, you were right the first time: There are thirty mark 4 sets, but thirty one class 91 locos. Qwerty133 was talking in terms of individual carriages.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

East Midlands Trains don’t operate 108 mark 3 carriages, they have 84, formed in 10 x 8 carriage rakes, with 4 spare vehicles.

Thanks for the info, so that updates EMT fleet list

• 10x 125's (8 Mark III carriages per rake)
• 6x 7 car Class 222's
• 17x 5 car Class 222's
• 4x 4 car Class 222's

The 222 fleet in total compromises of 54 driving vehicles and 131 intermediate vehicles.

If IEP train sets were to be ordered as a replacement fleet for the whole MML then I guess it would make sense to standardise on 9 car lengths* for the Nottingham/Sheffield fast services and five car for the semi fast services and eliminate the non standard 4 and 6 car lengths.

Question is how many IEP's of each length would be needed post MML electrification to operate all Fast/Semi fast services north of Leicester, (are any Sheffield fat services run as two doubled up 4/5 car 222's?) assuming that the Corby services are run with 387 type EMU's as planned?

* 9 car makes sense as they will be the same length as other sets on the ECML and GWML so are cascade able elsewhere.

No, you were right the first time: There are thirty mark 4 sets, but thirty one class 91 locos. Qwerty133 was talking in terms of individual carriages.

Thanks I thought I was right, still I can see lots of potential uses for Mark IV beyond the MML depending on what types of locomotives they are compatible with (Class 90's?).

 

[sprinterguy]

Thanks I thought I was right, still I can see lots of potential uses for Mark IV beyond the MML depending on what types of locomotives they are compatible with (Class 90's?).

Yep, mark 4s can and have worked with class 90s. I would be inclined to think that there might be an opportunity for some of the mark 4 rakes on the Great Eastern, though I suppose what’s powering them would be dependent on Eversholt’s chosen policy for any upgrade that takes place. The class 91s will be thirty years old, after all, by the time that they are withdrawn from service on the East Coast, and the mark 4 sets themselves not far behind.

 

[Qwerty133]

Thanks for the info, so that updates EMT fleet list

• 10x 125's (8 Mark III carriages per rake)
• 6x 7 car Class 222's
• 17x 5 car Class 222's
• 4x 4 car Class 222's

The 222 fleet in total compromises of 54 driving vehicles and 131 intermediate vehicles.

If IEP train sets were to be ordered as a replacement fleet for the whole MML then I guess it would make sense to standardise on 9 car lengths* for the Nottingham/Sheffield fast services and five car for the semi fast services and eliminate the non standard 4 and 6 car lengths.

Question is how many IEP's of each length would be needed post MML electrification to operate all Fast/Semi fast services north of Leicester, (are any Sheffield fat services run as two doubled up 4/5 car 222's?) assuming that the Corby services are run with 387 type EMU's as planned?

* 9 car makes sense as they will be the same length as other sets on the ECML and GWML so are cascade able elsewhere.


Thanks I thought I was right, still I can see lots of potential uses for Mark IV beyond the MML depending on what types of locomotives they are compatible with (Class 90's?).

5 cars isn't really enough for Sheffield semi fasts, I'd say they are probably more used than Nottingham 'fasts'. Personally I'd go for 9 Coaches on Sheffield fasts and 6/7 on all other services. I'm aware Nottigham fasts are currently 8 coaches, but that's due to them being the place slower trains causes the least inconvenience rather than needing more capacity.

 

[joeykins82]

Why would a long distance TOC run electrified services in a mix of long and short formations though? Surely they'd just standardise on 9x26m or 10x23m and just run them at that length all of the time, since the costs of running electric sets are far lower than diesel?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

5 cars isn't really enough for Sheffield semi fasts, I'd say they are probably more used than Nottingham 'fasts'. Personally I'd go for 9 Coaches on Sheffield fasts and 6/7 on all other services. I'm aware Nottigham fasts are currently 8 coaches, but that's due to them being the place slower trains causes the least inconvenience rather than needing more capacity.

Only problem with 6/7 carriages is they carn't be doubled up like 2x 5 carriages can, plus I have been on a few fast Nottingham HST's that have been fairly well loaded so reducing capacity those is a bad idea.

 

[phil281]

Why not keep the 91's + Mark 4's on the ECML and put the IEP's that don't replace the HST's on the ECML on the MML.......

 

[Haydn1971]

Why not keep the 91's + Mark 4's on the ECML and put the IEP's that don't replace the HST's on the ECML on the MML.......

That to me seems completely sensible, but others seem to think that it's vital to have a consistent fleet on a mainline, despite the fact that no express service has exclusive right of access without hindrance by tatty old stock and slow freight

 

[jopsuk]

It's more that the SETs are definitely replacing all the EC fleet. So work from that reality...