Former Grand Central HSTs now with EMT

[cactustwirly]

Was yesterday's run a one-off test, or is it in squadron service? I'm keen to cop it this weekend if I get a chance.

There's a lengthy RRB from Leicester to Bedford this weekend...
Which also means that the timing loads on RTT aren't neccessarily HSTs

 

[MML]

Is there any intention to use spare MK3 from GWR sets which have now moved to ScotRail to now extend the 6 coach sets ?
It would make sense if all EMT HST sets were standardised on 8 coach formations.

 

[43096]

Is there any intention to use spare MK3 from GWR sets which have now moved to ScotRail to now extend the 6 coach sets ?
It would make sense if all EMT HST sets were standardised on 8 coach formations.

No it doesn't make sense. If you read this thread you would see these sets are intended to be used on Class 222 diagrams. A 2+8 HST does not have the acceleration to do that so putting extra coaches in is an utterly stupid exercise.

 

[xc170]

No it doesn't make sense. If you read this thread you would see these sets are intended to be used on Class 222 diagrams. A 2+8 HST does not have the acceleration to do that so putting extra coaches in is an utterly stupid exercise.

I was wondering the same and was about to ask, given the charming response MML recievex, I’m glad I didn’t.

 

[MML]

Interesting article in the latest edition of Modern Railways.
It mentions the former Grand Central 2+6 HST sets will mainly work services currently scheduled for the Class 222 offering similar capacity. Yet contrary to the comment above, will operate on a standard 2+8 HST timing load as EMT were unable to make a submission for a different timing load in time for the May timetable change. It goes on to mention this giving extra flexibility in swapping 2+6 with 2+8 sets. Head of Train Planning at EMT mentions he believes difference in performance between the 2 variants will be minimal.

So to provide greater flexibility and given any difference in performance will be minimal, I wonder whether spare MK3 coaches may indeed be used to bolster HST formations. Although there is now also talk of MK4 coaches replacing the MK3s.

 

[cactustwirly]

Interesting article in the latest edition of Modern Railways.
It mentions the former Grand Central 2+6 HST sets will mainly work services currently scheduled for the Class 222 offering similar capacity. Yet contrary to the comment above, will operate on a standard 2+8 HST timing load as EMT were unable to make a submission for a different timing load in time for the May timetable change. It goes on to mention this giving extra flexibility in swapping 2+6 with 2+8 sets. Head of Train Planning at EMT mentions he believes difference in performance between the 2 variants will be minimal.

So to provide greater flexibility and given any difference in performance will be minimal, I wonder whether spare MK3 coaches may indeed be used to bolster HST formations. Although there is now also talk of MK4 coaches replacing the MK3s.

The HST diagrams are still timed for 110mph, even though they get up to 125mph in reality.
It's been said on here before, the Mk4s won't fit on the MML!

 

[43096]

The HST diagrams are still timed for 110mph, even though they get up to 125mph in reality.
It's been said on here before, the Mk4s won't fit on the MML!

No, the HSTs are not timed for 110mph. The timing load is shown as that but timings were improved when the line speed went up.

As for Mark 4s fitting, they may not be cleared currently but nothing to stop the necessary work being done.

Lost count of the number of times people have stated something as "can't be done" only for it to happen or the necessary work be done. So I'll take your statement with a huge pinch of salt.

 

[D365]

And I’ll take the statement that Mk4s will be transferred to the MML with a pinch of salt.

 

[SPADTrap]

And I’ll take the statement that Mk4s will be transferred to the MML with a pinch of salt.

Where was that statement posted? I can't find anything definitive.

 

[cactustwirly]

No, the HSTs are not timed for 110mph. The timing load is shown as that but timings were improved when the line speed went up.

As for Mark 4s fitting, they may not be cleared currently but nothing to stop the necessary work being done.

Lost count of the number of times people have stated something as "can't be done" only for it to happen or the necessary work be done. So I'll take your statement with a huge pinch of salt.

Ok it can be done, but every platform would need to be altered

 

[bnsf734]

There are 2 articles in March 2018 Modern Railways - page 10 in the News feature and Page 40 with more detail by Ian Walmsley.

Basically it involves fitting an inverter in each power car to provide the single phase 1000v needed by the Mark 4 coaches from the 3 phase 440v output by the power cars.

The coaches would also need control cables fitting to allow the power cars to be controlled together. Currently Mark 4 coaches use TDM (Time Division Multiplexing) using the lighting circuits.

There is also the slight problem in that the Mark 4 coaches belong to Eversholt and the power cars belong to Porterbrook and Angel trains so somebody will have to sort that one out!

Given the length of time it takes for stock to be modified and running, let alone infrastructure modifications to be costed and made, the December 2019 deadline is looking very close.

 

[Dunnyrail]

Interestingly Ian Walmsley has suggested Mk4 Stock with HST power in the March Modern Railways for the Midland rather than awful 800/Azuma's to give time for Electrification to become fashionable again. As a regular user of Mk4's I regret their passing from the ECML when it happens and support any proposal to keep at least some of these excelent vehicles in revenue service.
JonD

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Interestingly Ian Walmsley has suggested Mk4 Stock with HST power in the March Modern Railways for the Midland rather than awful 800/Azuma's to give time for Electrification to become fashionable again. As a regular user of Mk4's I regret their passing from the ECML when it happens and support any proposal to keep at least some of these excelent vehicles in revenue service.
JonD

Mk4s "excellent vehicles"??? They're quite comfortable... until the thing's going over 30mph, then it's a case of hanging on to your beer/coffee to prevent it hitting the window on the opposite side!

Assuming decent CWR in both cases, I'd say a Pacer at full whack is smoother than a Mk4 at full whack!

 

[cactustwirly]

Mk4s won't fit on the MML without significant platform alterations.

 

[Chester1]

Interestingly Ian Walmsley has suggested Mk4 Stock with HST power in the March Modern Railways for the Midland rather than awful 800/Azuma's to give time for Electrification to become fashionable again. As a regular user of Mk4's I regret their passing from the ECML when it happens and support any proposal to keep at least some of these excelent vehicles in revenue service.
JonD

His cost estimate was £24m for 12 sets of 2+8 including PRM-TSI compliance and batterys for hotel power when the power cars are running at full power (to offset the extra weight of mark IVs vs Mark IIIs). Even if the cost estimate is correct and the rumours he mentioned are true I would bet that they would be replaced with bi modes anyway and cascaded elsewhere. DfT won't want running under the wires and the Tories will want as many shiny new trains as possible to offset the political damage of cancelling electrification. I stick to my view that 110mph EMUs will be bought for Corby, new bi modes for the Nottingham + Sheffield and Meridians cascaded elsewhere, probably to CrossCountry in 2022-23.

 

[43096]

Mk4s won't fit on the MML without significant platform alterations.

Define "significant".

 

[MG11]

Define "significant".

Do MKIVs have SDO?

 

[ainsworth74]

Do MKIVs have SDO?

Nope. It isn't needed on the routes they currently serve.

 

[cactustwirly]

Define "significant".

Have a read of posts #296 -#300

 

[Kettledrum]

No it doesn't make sense. If you read this thread you would see these sets are intended to be used on Class 222 diagrams. A 2+8 HST does not have the acceleration to do that so putting extra coaches in is an utterly stupid exercise.

But some of the 222 workings I have been on are packed to the luggage racks with plenty standing. If you asked these passengers whether the train should have an extra 2 coaches, if it meant a time penalty of +5 minutes, it probably wouldn't be a stupid question.

Anecdotally I've noticed that where a 222 unit is so full it's packed to the luggage racks, you may lose time anyway because you need longer dwell times to empty out all the passengers.

 

[43096]

Have a read of posts #296 -#300

Done that. It doesn't tell me how many platforms are affected, though. One? Five? Ten? Fifty?

 

[cactustwirly]

Done that. It doesn't tell me how many platforms are affected, though. One? Five? Ten? Fifty?

Atleast Market Harborough & Wellingborough, possibly Bedford.

Not too sure about how many TL stations.

 

[MG11]

Atleast Market Harborough & Wellingborough, possibly Bedford.

Not too sure about how many TL stations.

Long Eaton

 

[Domh245]

Atleast Market Harborough & Wellingborough, possibly Bedford.

Not too sure about how many TL stations.

From memory, the chap who I linked to in that post implied later on that the station in question in the diagram was South of Bedford. And it's also worth bringing to mind something he tweeted slightly earlier about how the MML already runs many of its platforms "foul" - so taking that literally, it'd be at least 50% +1 of all of the platforms on the MML that would need re-doing. Short of someone on this forum with access to the relevant software looking it up (or it being announced) - we won't actually know.

 

[MG11]

From memory, the chap who I linked to in that post implied later on that the station in question in the diagram was South of Bedford. And it's also worth bringing to mind something he tweeted slightly earlier about how the MML already runs many of its platforms "foul" - so taking that literally, it'd be at least 50% +1 of all of the platforms on the MML that would need re-doing. Short of someone on this forum with access to the relevant software looking it up (or it being announced) - we won't actually know.

Try PMing Low Level, they may be able to look it up for you!

 

[Domh245]

I think that Low Level works for a TOC - the piece of software in question (clearview) is a Network Rail / Infrastructure side thing, but I'm sure that someone will have access. Whether or not they have the time to look up these things and share them is another matter of course.

 

[D365]

Whether or not they have the time to look up these things and share them is another matter of course.

Not to mention they'll have to be sitting in the correct part of the office

 

[tbtc]

But some of the 222 workings I have been on are packed to the luggage racks with plenty standing. If you asked these passengers whether the train should have an extra 2 coaches, if it meant a time penalty of +5 minutes, it probably wouldn't be a stupid question

Some passengers might accept the trade off but how will the time penalty affect the ability to slot in between the Thameslink services south of Bedford (and the congested southern end of Derby station plus the busy section north of Dore junction on the way into Sheffield.

Easy to deal with time penalties on something like C2C, where you can re-write the timetable but EMT interact with TSGN, XC, TPE. Northern and various FOCs too, so it may not be as easy.

 

[MG11]

Some passengers might accept the trade off but how will the time penalty affect the ability to slot in between the Thameslink services south of Bedford (and the congested southern end of Derby station plus the busy section north of Dore junction on the way into Sheffield.

Easy to deal with time penalties on something like C2C, where you can re-write the timetable but EMT interact with TSGN, XC, TPE. Northern and various FOCs too, so it may not be as easy.

Many TL services actually run on seperate lines (alongside) EMT services. The only problem I envisage are with the stoppers south of Wellingborough which may use the slow lines, but even so by Harpenden, they are back on the fast lines.

 

[43096]

Many TL services actually run on seperate lines (alongside) EMT services. The only problem I envisage are with the stoppers south of Wellingborough which may use the slow lines, but even sos by Harpenden, they are back on the fast lines.

I would suggest reading the piece in the current Modern Railways about the timetabling challenge EMT have had with Thameslink. There is plenty of Thameslink stuff on the fast lines at various points south of Bedford.