Former Grand Central HSTs now with EMT

[DarloRich]

That is a dumb idea. Electrification to Corby due for completion in December 2019. PRM requirement from 01/01/2020. You'd get about 15 days use out of the 90+Mark 3 stock.

Who's doing the work to the XC doors? And the rest of the mods?

There is going to have to be a derogation - there simply isnt time left or space in the overhaul market or capacity within the materials suppliers to allow the changes to be made in time. I have said this since day 1 btw

 

[Qwerty133]

As it stands Stagecoach will have a claim as their plans to have the stock modified were blocked based upon an electrified railway being planned but then cancelled? There is nothing else that can be done other than cancel half the timetable.

I completely disagree.
IEPs meant for East Coast could be used with only marginal cancellations on the ECML if more 91s stayed in service and to me this is a much more acceptable proposal than to keep unsuitable trains going.

 

[Domh245]

IEPs meant for East Coast could be used with only marginal cancellations on the ECML if more 91s stayed in service and to me this is a much more acceptable proposal than to keep unsuitable trains going.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that you'd have to alter the contract with Agility, and given how much it cost, and how difficult it was just to get them to agree to increase the engine output by 190hp, the cost to move them from East Coast to MML will be astronomical. Get a derogation, conditional on the replacement stock being on order so that the end date of the derogation can be made concrete, and soldier on with the HSTs until they've been replaced. All concerned are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but of all the options, a derogation is going to be the simplest and most cost effective way out.

 

[cactustwirly]

You seem to have overlooked the fact that you'd have to alter the contract with Agility, and given how much it cost, and how difficult it was just to get them to agree to increase the engine output by 190hp, the cost to move them from East Coast to MML will be astronomical. Get a derogation, conditional on the replacement stock being on order so that the end date of the derogation can be made concrete, and soldier on with the HSTs until they've been replaced. All concerned are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but of all the options, a derogation is going to be the simplest and most cost effective way out.

IEPs could never keep to the MML timetables anyway (long stretches of 125mph running), a dedicated intercity DMU would need to be ordered, since IEPs can't use the OHLE between Bedford and St Pancras, without expensive modifications.

 

[Domh245]

IEPs could never keep to the MML timetables anyway (long stretches of 125mph running), a dedicated intercity DMU would need to be ordered, since IEPs can't use the OHLE between Bedford and St Pancras, without expensive modifications.

AIUI, those expensive modifications had been contracted out to Carillion, so the intent is clearly there to upgrade them in conjunction with electrification beyond Bedford, although the ability to deliver is currently lacking. I'm also not convinced that a pure intercity DMU is particularly palatable at the moment, given that Grayling has been waxing lyrical about bi-modes - it'd be a bit of an egg-on-face moment if he then announced pure DMUs because bi-modes can't keep up.

 

[SPADTrap]

I completely disagree.
IEPs meant for East Coast could be used with only marginal cancellations on the ECML if more 91s stayed in service and to me this is a much more acceptable proposal than to keep unsuitable trains going.

Disagree all you like, it doesn't change the situation. You'd also be forcing unmodified HSTs to stay in service on the ECML merely moving the issue.

 

[SPADTrap]

AIUI, those expensive modifications had been contracted out to Carillion, so the intent is clearly there to upgrade them in conjunction with electrification beyond Bedford, although the ability to deliver is currently lacking. I'm also not convinced that a pure intercity DMU is particularly palatable at the moment, given that Grayling has been waxing lyrical about bi-modes - it'd be a bit of an egg-on-face moment if he then announced pure DMUs because bi-modes can't keep up.

And there lay the issue. In order for inept politicians to save face they'll continue down the wrong path, must avoid 'egg on face' as if that is the only real issue.

 

[mpthomson]

If I maybe a pedant the Trumpton policeman is PC McGarry no.452. As well all know the fireman are Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grub. Their boss was Captain Flack. If I recall they all rode on Bessie once in a Chigley episode.

To be a further pedant, Officer Dibble is from Top Cat, known as Boss Cat on the BBC as there was a cat food called Top Cat around at the same time as the programme!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Just waiting for the suggestion (again) of Mk4s and HST power cars ......

As it happens I was literally just about to suggest that? Is that not a viable option then?

 

[Domh245]

As it happens I was literally just about to suggest that? Is that not a viable option then?

No. As mentioned many times previously, the electrical systems are incompatible, and so either the carriages or the power cars would need modifications. There is also the issue of Mk4s not being cleared for the MML, and are unlikely to be so without adjusting lots of platform edges.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

No. As mentioned many times previously, the electrical systems are incompatible, and so either the carriages or the power cars would need modifications. There is also the issue of Mk4s not being cleared for the MML, and are unlikely to be so without adjusting lots of platform edges.

Ah, I didn’t know about them being incompatible.

 

[SPADTrap]

No. As mentioned many times previously, the electrical systems are incompatible, and so either the carriages or the power cars would need modifications. There is also the issue of Mk4s not being cleared for the MML, and are unlikely to be so without adjusting lots of platform edges.

It was mentioned by those making the decisions though! Mk4s have been on the MML once at least.

 

[Qwerty133]

Disagree all you like, it doesn't change the situation. You'd also be forcing unmodified HSTs to stay in service on the ECML merely moving the issue.

Again wrong. It would require the rationalisation of services north of Edinburgh and the end of a number of occasional services but with the large scale capacity enhancements happening in Scotland it is better that these are cut than any derogations are permitted. I think the DfT and the railway are yet again expecting central government to accept its incompetence and stubbornness and has done absolutely nothing to prepare for a situation in which derogations are declined. It is frankly farcical that the railway is providing large scale capacity enhancements and replacing stock that either meets or could easily be made to meet in some areas while others are still lacking in such facilities as doors that many people with disabilities can open and bogs that don't drop **** onto the tracks.

Whether using the 800s directly on the MML is the optimal solution (it may be that it would make more sense to use some GWR 802s freed up by the 800s heading there) is a different question but when the core ECML service can be almost entirely be provided by electric units and it is looking likely that power door electric coaches are going to be scrapped in the next couple of years it makes no sense for bi-modes to be wasted on the ECML.

 

[158756]

AIUI, those expensive modifications had been contracted out to Carillion, so the intent is clearly there to upgrade them in conjunction with electrification beyond Bedford, although the ability to deliver is currently lacking. I'm also not convinced that a pure intercity DMU is particularly palatable at the moment, given that Grayling has been waxing lyrical about bi-modes - it'd be a bit of an egg-on-face moment if he then announced pure DMUs because bi-modes can't keep up.

He can't simply announce an order of DMU's can he. A 125mph DMU, performance greater than an 802, doesn't currently exist, indeed as far as we know it hasn't been definitively proved possible under current regulations. You'd likely. be looking at another lengthy IEP -style procurement. It certainly wouldn't be ready for 2020.

 

[goblinuser]

XC are getting power doors so will be compliant. VTEC fleet strategy is up in the air currently given NR's failure to deliver the infrastructure to support the extra trains out of Kings Cross, but there are IEPs on order to replace the HST fleet as it currently stands.

Which leaves EMT, where there is a problem.

The solution is simple. Continue using them as an exception. Grandfather rights and all that

 

[SPADTrap]

Again wrong. It would require the rationalisation of services north of Edinburgh and the end of a number of occasional services but with the large scale capacity enhancements happening in Scotland it is better that these are cut than any derogations are permitted. I think the DfT and the railway are yet again expecting central government to accept its incompetence and stubbornness and has done absolutely nothing to prepare for a situation in which derogations are declined. It is frankly farcical that the railway is providing large scale capacity enhancements and replacing stock that either meets or could easily be made to meet in some areas while others are still lacking in such facilities as doors that many people with disabilities can open and bogs that don't drop **** onto the tracks.

Whether using the 800s directly on the MML is the optimal solution (it may be that it would make more sense to use some GWR 802s freed up by the 800s heading there) is a different question but when the core ECML service can be almost entirely be provided by electric units and it is looking likely that power door electric coaches are going to be scrapped in the next couple of years it makes no sense for bi-modes to be wasted on the ECML.

It's only wrong if you live on another planet

 

[43096]

Whether using the 800s directly on the MML is the optimal solution (it may be that it would make more sense to use some GWR 802s freed up by the 800s heading there)

What on earth are you talking about?

802s being freed up? What?

 

[43096]

The solution is simple. Continue using them as an exception. Grandfather rights and all that

No such thing as "grandfather rights" when it comes to PRM compliance, and we don't know if derogations would be granted - there has been no indication on this so far.

 

[daikilo]

We also appear to take the statements that "it is now too late to do more conversions" as fact.

Are other companies able to do the conversions under licence and/or are the existing centres able to work more hours and/or with larger teams. The latter is the most desirable as it could limit the time out-of-service per trainset.

 

[Qwerty133]

What on earth are you talking about?

802s being freed up? What?

Swap GWR 802s with 800s pencilled in for the ECML (freed up by abandoning non electrified extensions and keeping 91s in service).

 

[edwin_m]

Does the lack of promised infrastructure enhancements mean East Coast won't be able to run all its 800s anyway?

 

[Chester1]

No. As mentioned many times previously, the electrical systems are incompatible, and so either the carriages or the power cars would need modifications. There is also the issue of Mk4s not being cleared for the MML, and are unlikely to be so without adjusting lots of platform edges.

Those modifications could be done by 2020 but the power doors can't all be done on time. The best compromise would be to make one carriage per set fully compliant and do the cheaper modifications to the rest. Once new stock arrives the full compliant carriages could be formed into a couple of sets and cascaded to another ToC and the rest scrapped.

 

[The 4th Rail]

Shortened Mark 4 sets with 67's?

*Runs for cover*

On a serious note I expect the HST's to soldier on post 2020, the interesting aspect will be the PR spin on the situation.

 

[cjmillsnun]

No. As mentioned many times previously, the electrical systems are incompatible, and so either the carriages or the power cars would need modifications. There is also the issue of Mk4s not being cleared for the MML, and are unlikely to be so without adjusting lots of platform edges.

The electrical systems could be adapted by altering the power cars. To rectify 1000V DC from 415V three phase AC is not difficult, and would be a solution that could be implemented relatively quickly in the former guard's space. Someone mentioned that Mk4s have used the MML so I would assume clearance issues would be limited to the newer stations like St Pancras and EM Parkway. You're likely to need similar mods anyway to allow a build of 80x to use the MML, so the mods would be required anyway for the long term.

 

[43096]

Swap GWR 802s with 800s pencilled in for the ECML (freed up by abandoning non electrified extensions and keeping 91s in service).

So your proposal is to give East Coast a worse service and put in place yet another massively expensive variation to the IEP PFI contract to give GWR trains that don't match the 802 performance level in terms of power and fuel range.

 

[Domh245]

Someone mentioned that Mk4s have used the MML so I would assume clearance issues would be limited to the newer stations like St Pancras and EM Parkway. You're likely to need similar mods anyway to allow a build of 80x to use the MML, so the mods would be required anyway for the long term.

With regards to the gauge clearance, the example that I saw* which showed a Mk4 vehicle fouling a platform is described as a being on a "fairly tight but fast left-handed curve" and also implies that it is a 'legacy' platform. I can only assume that the Mk4's previous excursions on the MML haven't been at 125mph, and have thus had a reduced Kinematic Envelope. Also worth pointing out that the IEP is more similar to the Mk3 in the problematic step area than the Mk4, but as noted, these would have to be properly cleared (ie none of the theoretical negative clearance for Mk3s that is currently accepted)

Image 1: The platform (white) on a "fairly tight but fast left-handed curve" with the standard coper (red), and kinematic envelopes of Mk4 (Magenta), Mk3 (Blue) and Meridian (Orange)

Image 2: Detail of the Kinematic Envelopes for Mk4 (Magenta), Mk3 (Blue), Mk5 (Cyan), and IET (Green) on straight track at 25mph.


*Well worth reading through the rest of that thread, which is all about physical route clearing Mk4s on the MML from someone in the know

 

[SPADTrap]

With regards to the gauge clearance, the example that I saw* which showed a Mk4 vehicle fouling a platform is described as a being on a "fairly tight but fast left-handed curve" and also implies that it is a 'legacy' platform. I can only assume that the Mk4's previous excursions on the MML haven't been at 125mph, and have thus had a reduced Kinematic Envelope. Also worth pointing out that the IEP is more similar to the Mk3 in the problematic step area than the Mk4, but as noted, these would have to be properly cleared (ie none of the theoretical negative clearance for Mk3s that is currently accepted)

Image 1: The platform (white) on a "fairly tight but fast left-handed curve" with the standard coper (red), and kinematic envelopes of Mk4 (Magenta), Mk3 (Blue) and Meridian (Orange)

Image 2: Detail of the Kinematic Envelopes for Mk4 (Magenta), Mk3 (Blue), Mk5 (Cyan), and IET (Green) on straight track at 25mph.


*Well worth reading through the rest of that thread, which is all about physical route clearing Mk4s on the MML from someone in the know

Fantastic post and very interesting. Thank you!

 

[Martin222002]

With regards to the gauge clearance, the example that I saw* which showed a Mk4 vehicle fouling a platform is described as a being on a "fairly tight but fast left-handed curve" and also implies that it is a 'legacy' platform. I can only assume that the Mk4's previous excursions on the MML haven't been at 125mph, and have thus had a reduced Kinematic Envelope. Also worth pointing out that the IEP is more similar to the Mk3 in the problematic step area than the Mk4, but as noted, these would have to be properly cleared (ie none of the theoretical negative clearance for Mk3s that is currently accepted)

Image 1: The platform (white) on a "fairly tight but fast left-handed curve" with the standard coper (red), and kinematic envelopes of Mk4 (Magenta), Mk3 (Blue) and Meridian (Orange)

Image 2: Detail of the Kinematic Envelopes for Mk4 (Magenta), Mk3 (Blue), Mk5 (Cyan), and IET (Green) on straight track at 25mph.


*Well worth reading through the rest of that thread, which is all about physical route clearing Mk4s on the MML from someone in the know

Very interesting stuff! A question though. It appears to be suggested that this platform in question is on the MML. What I find odd is that it appears that a Mk3 would also be out of gauge at said platform, which if it is on the MML seems a bit strange.

 

[Domh245]

Very interesting stuff! A question though. It appears to be suggested that this platform in question is on the MML. What I find odd is that it appears that a Mk3 would also be out of gauge at said platform, which if it is on the MML seems a bit strange.

As Gareth explains "The trouble with the MML is that it already runs many of its platforms "foul", i.e. with theoretical negative clearances. This is a tolerable risk with existing stock experience but as soon as you introduce new stock, any corrections would have to eliminate "fouls" to everything."

So yes, theoretically the Mk3s should be coming into contact with said platform on a frequent basis, but you can point to the fact that they aren't to prove that it is fine to keep running them over the route. The Mk4s, being "Really Foul" will probably still hit it, even if the Mk3s aren't, but also modern standards mean that you can't get away with theoretical negative clearances.

 

[cjmillsnun]

With regards to the gauge clearance, the example that I saw* which showed a Mk4 vehicle fouling a platform is described as a being on a "fairly tight but fast left-handed curve" and also implies that it is a 'legacy' platform. I can only assume that the Mk4's previous excursions on the MML haven't been at 125mph, and have thus had a reduced Kinematic Envelope. Also worth pointing out that the IEP is more similar to the Mk3 in the problematic step area than the Mk4, but as noted, these would have to be properly cleared (ie none of the theoretical negative clearance for Mk3s that is currently accepted)

Image 1: The platform (white) on a "fairly tight but fast left-handed curve" with the standard coper (red), and kinematic envelopes of Mk4 (Magenta), Mk3 (Blue) and Meridian (Orange)

Image 2: Detail of the Kinematic Envelopes for Mk4 (Magenta), Mk3 (Blue), Mk5 (Cyan), and IET (Green) on straight track at 25mph.


*Well worth reading through the rest of that thread, which is all about physical route clearing Mk4s on the MML from someone in the know

Now that is interesting.