Part 1 - IC225/MML
Alot has been said about these issues on this topic, so rather than quote individually I will just summarise most of the points I would like to respond to, with the points others have made in
grey and my comments in
green:
- Class 91s and mrk4s. They'll be too young to scrap, that would be a farce surly? I really like the Electras. I agree, too young to scrap, it would be a terrible waste if they end up getting cut in 2020 or soon after.
- Install tilt on IC225s Fairly sure I read somewhere that either the coaches or the 91s (I forget which) have had the passive provision for tilt removed, so it is unlikely that tilt is an option for the fleet now.
- 91+Mk4 are slower and older than the current meridians keeping to 222 timings could be a problem for an IC225, but they are not slower or older than the IC125s
- Mark 4s to Anglia. alright in theroy but still wasteful as it would result in the needless scrapping of either the 91s or the 90s.
- IEP likely for MML. Certainly if the through trains to off-wire destinations are to be retained, then IEP seems a blindingly obvious solution
- Reducing the length of IC225 sets to keep to class 222 timings. Might or might not be a good idea
- new diesel locos, to haul the mark 4s between Paddington and Penzance could the electrical incompatibilty between class 43s and mrk4s be resolved? then you don't need new locos. Still, the premeture death of the 91s would be very disapointing
- will a 11 vehicle long 225 set fit at all MML stations Good question, I didn't think of that in drawing up my proposals (presented further down this post)
- Buying new IC trains for the MML will be expensive indeed it will, and given how much will be spent on IEP I think a value option of sorts is needed
Now to go into a bit more detail:
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.
I've no idea, but I think the general rule is the multiple units get off the mark very quickly but aren't so quick higher up the speed range (eg. going from 90-110mph). An IC225 set might start to catch up as the speeds get higher. This leads me to my core conclusion, that the MML (which has more stops than the ECML and less high-speed running (they've only just gained 125mph sections)) would be better off with MUs and the IC225s are most at home on services with long, fast, runs between stops. I'm quite pleased to read that others seem to have reached the same conclusion, namely:
If anything the MML should receive the IEPs with the mk4s staying on the ECML if no more trains can be ordered, however personally I'd like to see a mix of 6 and 10 coach Pendolinos, if possible some being bi-modes, which could be ordered at the same time as an order to replace the voyagers at Virgin, which hopefully could also be bi-modes reducing the need for Locos.
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.......
I don't understand why the 91's-Mk4's need replacing? They were refurbished to a high standard recently and are perfectly suited to the route they operate. Why not put the meridians on the ECML to replace the HST's and boost capacity IEPS on the MML when it is electrified??? Just seems a political fudge and you are going to end up with unsuitable stock on both routes.
While phil281's suggestion of using 222s on the ECML makes little sense (diesels under the wires), I think the general concept of diverting some of the ECML IEP fleet to the MML and leaving the 91's + Mark 4's on the ECML is sound. However, the accessiblity of Leeds depot (for IC225 stabling) and (I think) Doncaster (IEP) depot to both the ECML and MML opens up a further possibility, sharing the stock. As with First and Arriva sharing the class 175 fleet for a time, maintainance would be kept centralised avoiding most of the problems of micro-fleets (otherwise, a small fleet of perhaps 8 self-powered diagrams, of two different lengths, for the small number of off-wire MML services could be considered insane). It would allow stock to be diagrammed where it is most appropriate, rather than taking the whole IC225 fleet off the line it is probably most suitable for. A while ago, I tried to guess/work-out just how many diagrams of each type of train each TOC would need. Here's what I came up with (all numbers are diagrams):
- 14x IEP 9-car bi-mode (split 4 for MML, 10 for ECML)
- 8x IEP 5-car bi-mode (split equally between ECML and MML)
- 11x IEP 8-car 'electric' (for MML only)
- 14x IEP 9-car 'electric' (for ECML only)
- 26x IC225 (8 for MML, 18 for ECML)
Note that the 8 IC225s for the MML corrospond to the 8x IC125 diagrams on the MML, so they would not be replacing 222s and therefore should be able to keep time. As an added bonus, the fact MML services are so short at present, suggesting 8-car rather than 9-car IEPs, saves 34 diagramed IEP vehicles compared to the current ECML order. It just so happens that those 34 diagrammed vehicles would enable the following IEP fleet for the GWML (again, diagrams):
- 22x 9-car 'electric'
- 13x 9-car bi-mode
- 8x 5-car bi-mode
In fact, there would be one diagrammed vehicle left over, but I think that would be a vastly more sensible fleet for the GWML than the planned 35 5-car bi-modes.
Roger Ford's latest CP5 rolling stock table, (in the 'speculation' section), proposes the MML getting 125 mph EMUs, comprised of 175 vehicles in 5 car formation, so 35 units.
35 units would be about the same as now, which I think cover 31 diagrams but I think some of those are only strengthening units, so the 27 diagrams I suggested above for MML sounds about right. And rather than cut 2+8 IC125s down to 5-car EMUs my proposal boosts all but 4 MML diagrams to at least 8-car, providing a good increase in capacity I expect.
Unlikely since HS2 will replace much of the MML intercity services and therefore new stock wouldn't have much of a long life. However if you use mark IVs with new locos as was one of the suggestions from eversholt you could use them up to 2032 when the mark IVs could be scrapped and the locos moved over the freight workings.
You don't need to bother with the new locos, 2032 will be around about when the 91s will be ready for retirement to.
It's more that the SETs are definitely replacing all the EC fleet. So work from that reality...
Unless I've missed something, all options which work from that starting point result either in the class 91s being wastefully scrapped or the IC225 fleet ending up somewhere they aren't really suited for. Apart from the ECML, the GWML is the only other place they might be suitable and probably less so than on the ECML. Besides, the GWML is also getting IEP. I'm therefore minded to say that we had better make sure that plan to replace the entire East Coast fleet with new trains does not become reality. The government/DfT need to change their minds on this. Anyone fancy starting a petition to keep at least some of the IC225s on the East Coast???
Part 2 - Portsmouth - Cardiff
158s replaced by 165s? That will be a downgrade for Cardiff - Portsmouth. Otherwise there are only 2 2 car 158s at present.
If the 165's do replace the 158's on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route, I really do wonder how FGW will "sell" this to passengers considering the 165's will very much be a downgrade compared to the 158's (in terms of passenger comfort etc).
Only if they're not refurbed. Give them air conditioning, 2+2 seating in a suitable layout (with tables), plug sockets and wifi and watch passengers coo over the "new" trains.
You can refurbish and polish all you like, but if anyone ever makes a 166 or 165 which is has absolutely no drawbacks compared to a 158 for regional express work like Cardiff-Portsmouth I might well die of supprise. The reason for this is simple, if you replace a 158 with a 166 or 165:
you lose one of the nicer things about the 158's (the layout of the doors).
165s and 166s to replace Pacers and perhaps 150s please. No replacing 158s with suburban-door stock, except perhaps if the 158s in question are working suburban-type services instead of regional express ones.
Part 3 - Others
Youd imagine the 313s, 455s and 442s will go for scrap.
TSGN have only commited to replacing 313s on Moorgate services with new units. What about the 313s on the Coastway? In my view, TSGN should keep the 442s (moved from the Gatwick Expresses to other Brighton expresses) to release some 377s back to the Coastway. The 24 442s should be enough to release sufficient 377s to get rid of those 19 313s.
The 442s are almost certainly going to the scrapyard, with the cost of all the work they'd need to keep them going.
Aren't SWT re-tractioning some stock (455s isn't it?) to simplify maintainance? If they can do that, they should be able to re-traction the 442s as well and gain life-extension as well as maintainance benifits.
185's would be great for Scottish routes and an improvement over the 170's the Scotrail currently operate.
Now there's an idea, I was wondering what could be done with the 185s as they would probably be rather expensive/over-powered for use as replacements for Pacers and 150/1s. The 170s already have the same inappropriate door layout for long-distance services so 185s would at least not be a step backwards, whereas they would if used as 158 replacements. There would still be a question of what to do with the 170s released by the 185s, releasing 150/1s to replace Pacers perhaps?
What about the 175s? Currently secure in Wales is this likely to remain the same long term? The Marches line appears to be a long way down the line for any electrification project but the lack of first class on a (sort of) intercity route stands out a bit. Is loco-hauled coaching stock a potential replacement for the 175s on the Marches?
Personally, I think the main problem with 175s on the marches (particularly the Manchester - CDF/SWA run) is the limited formation length. I suppose if you had a seperate fleet of 158s and either 155s or 156s to run west of Cardiff/Swansea it would save a few 175s allowing (some of) the 2-car sets to be merged to form 4-car sets. Even better if you can convert half the end vehicles of the 2-car sets to intermediate vehicles to allow walk-through capability on the 4-car units.
Rumours that Northern are to loan two units to sister Abellio company Greater Anglia from late 2014. This will be the death knell to the loco-hauled short set. Already seems accepted that DBSO/37 combo will no longer happen.
Are you refering to the 'Glo-Ex' 37 for Northern or a proposal for using a 37 in place of the Anglia top&tail 47s? If you mean the latter, I never knew about that. If you meant the 'Glo-Ex', then what happened to that plan?
It was announced on BBC Northeast regional news on Friday that Pacers are being modernised and retained. "A broken promise by Ministers at the DfT". Very depressing news for Pacer users.
How many Pacers retained? All of them? All except 142s? Just 144s? In my view, given DfT's 'trade-offs' in the Northern consultation, I think a fair number of Pacers ought to be retained to ensure all services can be retained. As many 142s as possible should be withdrawn though, and ideally the remaining 2-car Pacers would be merged to make 3-car or 4-car units.
) trains.
