Future for HST on MML

[hwl]

In the latest edition of RAIL it says that the DfT has extended the franchise for EMT until March 2019 and indicated it’s intention to negotiate with Stagecoach to operate it until August 2019 with an option to extend the contract by a further year.

My understanding is that DfT have also asked EMT to procure a bi-mode fleet for the next franchisee to replace both the HST and Meridian fleets.

 

[1179_Clee2]

In the latest edition of RAIL it says that the DfT has extended the franchise for EMT until March 2019 and indicated it’s intention to negotiate with Stagecoach to operate it until August 2019 with an option to extend the contract by a further year.

In a recent edition of RAIL someone senior at EMT said that it was currently not possible to get EMT's HST coaches through Doncaster to fit PRM mods by 2020 due to lack of capacity to do it.
BUT he said if something different happens (which he would not expand on) ALL of EMT's HST coaches would be able to go through Doncaster and get the PRM mods done by 2020.
The BIG question is how does Doncaster find capacity to convert additional HST coaches by 2020 if they don't have capacity to do it ??? delay or cancel a existing HST order ??? or is the above extension to the franchise connected ??? or is the DfT trying to get Stagecoach to fit PRM to the East Mids train fleet.

 

[yorksrob]

Because certain members of this forum who have an irrational dislike for anything built since their parents were born were keeping the secret that the directors of EMT were using child slavery on the condition the Meridians were replaced by HSTs...
(clearly not meant seriously, but is about the only conceivable reason for preferring more HSTs)

You mean, apart from the fact that they operate a high quality InterCity service and are more comfortable than any modern replacements.

I hope that whatever modifications deemed necessary are done to keep them in service, at least until electrification can be progressed to cover the whole main line.

 

[yorksrob]

My understanding is that DfT have also asked EMT to procure a bi-mode fleet for the next franchisee to replace both the HST and Meridian fleets.

What a waste of money. If ever there was a franchise suited to full electrification (eventually) the MML is it. Someone in the DfT had the bi-mode idea and obviously wants to slap it on over the whole network.

 

[MCR247]

What a waste of money. If ever there was a franchise suited to full electrification (eventually) the MML is it. Someone in the DfT had the bi-mode idea and obviously wants to slap it on over the whole network.

So why is it a waste of money? It definitely isn't ideal but with the electrification backlog what is a better option? I'd like to hope the 222s would go to XC which would be good news

 

[Qwerty133]

So why is it a waste of money? It definitely isn't ideal but with the electrification backlog what is a better option? I'd like to hope the 222s would go to XC which would be good news

If the franchise timetable is in as much of a mess as the above posts would suggest I'd hope that EMT would be refusing to entertain the release of the 222s unless they were offered a significantly improved fleet for local services and Liverpool-Norwich.

 

[43074]

What a waste of money. If ever there was a franchise suited to full electrification (eventually) the MML is it. Someone in the DfT had the bi-mode idea and obviously wants to slap it on over the whole network.

I disagree to an extent - generally I'm not in favour of bi-modes but in the case of the MML their oldest HSTs are 40 years old, and even with a fully electrified ''core'' route to Nottingham & Sheffield bi-modes make sense to an extent because of the range of diversionary routes the trains can (and do) use which are unlikely to be electrified in the future. If a bi-mode can't equal the sectional running times of a 222 then it would clearly be a backwards step, but if EMT are procuring the replacements then you would hope that wouldn't be the case.

If the franchise timetable is in as much of a mess as the above posts would suggest I'd hope that EMT would be refusing to entertain the release of the 222s unless they were offered a significantly improved fleet for local services and Liverpool-Norwich.

To be honest 222s are unsuitable for anything other than the Mainline - there will be 14 3-car and 21 2-car 170s available from the West Midlands and East Anglia franchises which would be perfectly adequate for a 153/156 replacement scheme - the 222s would be better off providing more capacity at XC as @MCR247 suggested above.

 

[Kettledrum]

I for one will be sad when the HSTs are taken out of service on the MML. Even with more airline style seating squeezed in, they still provide a good passenger experience on the longer MML trips. Unlike the 222's, they don't have the noise from the underfloor engines of the toilet smells. If only they had plug doors and sockets for mobile phones and laptops.

The downsides though are clear. Their acceleration is too slow for modern timetables, and their age must make them increasingly tricky to repair and maintain, as more things start to go wrong in them. They're also not suitable for some of the commuter services that they are currently used on (i.e. the ones that are full at Market Harborough before they then stop at Kettering, Wellingborough and Luton Airport Parkway).

The 222s will be great on cross country which desperately needs more capacity. Bi-modes will be great for the southern half of the MML, but could we keep some modified HSTs for the limited stop express services?

 

[yorksrob]

So why is it a waste of money? It definitely isn't ideal but with the electrification backlog what is a better option? I'd like to hope the 222s would go to XC which would be good news

The better option in my opinion would be to keep HST's until you can electrify properly, then replace with fully electric new stock.

 

[hwl]

The better option in my opinion would be to keep HST's until you can electrify properly, then replace with fully electric new stock.

Or get an extra 20m+ of actual seating as you no longer have power cars (after taking account of circa 16m of non passenger space per IEP).

Eliminates NOx emissions at St Pancras and reduces them inside Greater London helping DfT and DEFRA reduce NOx emission in London.

It also decouples rolling stock introduction and electrification thus not introducing deadlines that become very expensive to meet as seen on GWML.

It also means phased electrification can take place.

 

[Mikey C]

Or get an extra 20m+ of actual seating as you no longer have power cars (after taking account of circa 16m of non passenger space per IEP).

Eliminates NOx emissions at St Pancras and reduces them inside Greater London helping DfT and DEFRA reduce NOx emission in London.

It also decouples rolling stock introduction and electrification thus not introducing deadlines that become very expensive to meet as seen on GWML.

It also means phased electrification can take place.

I imagine getting diesels out of the shiny, showcase St Pancras would be a major consideration, plus utilising the wiring from London to Bedford (and soon Kettering)

 

[MCR247]

The better option in my opinion would be to keep HST's until you can electrify properly, then replace with fully electric new stock.

But isn't the whole point that MML electrification is now almost an aspiration? Network Rail aren't a position to say when it will be done and whilst the HSTs can obviously be life extended it will still have a finite life so I doubt the DfT want to put pressure effectively on themselves

 

[edwin_m]

Long shot ... EMU excluding the end driving cars with some arrangement to drive it remotely from HST power cars coupled each end?

 

[D365]

Long shot ... EMU excluding the end driving cars with some arrangement to drive it remotely from HST power cars coupled each end?

Yep... Very long shot indeed

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I am sure there will be plenty of reasons why not but would it be possible to adapt Mk 4 coaches to run behind HST locos

HSTs cannot provide standard ETS , this is why the 'surrogate DVT' class 43s were required on the 91 hauled mk3 sets used to get the class 91s bedded in on the ECML while awaiting the completion , delivery and commissioning of the the mk 4s

 

[edwin_m]

HSTs cannot provide standard ETS , this is why the 'surrogate DVT' class 43s were required on the 91 hauled mk3 sets used to get the class 91s bedded in on the ECML while awaiting the completion , delivery and commissioning of the the mk 4s

It's actually the other way round. The HST trailers need a three-phase supply which standard locos can't provide. Would it be possible to rectify the three-phase supply from a power car to provide something that is within the wide voltage/frequency tolerances of standard ETS?

 

[yorksrob]

But isn't the whole point that MML electrification is now almost an aspiration? Network Rail aren't a position to say when it will be done and whilst the HSTs can obviously be life extended it will still have a finite life so I doubt the DfT want to put pressure effectively on themselves

I think "aspiration" is too weak a term. It must still be a longer term aim. A decent life extension should see out any time before electrification crews and plant are released from elsewhere.

 

[Emblematic]

It's actually the other way round. The HST trailers need a three-phase supply which standard locos can't provide. Would it be possible to rectify the three-phase supply from a power car to provide something that is within the wide voltage/frequency tolerances of standard ETS?

It's a relatively cheap and simple option, by far the easiest way combining Mk4s with Class 43s. Just needs an equipment cabinet or two, plus a very modest amount of rewiring on the loco.

 

[mushroomchow]

Regarding the proposed bi-mode replacement, a massive elephant in the room emerged at the DfT consultation in Leicester the other week.

In addition to their other flaws, such as a Leeds-London train, even at the maximum extent of electrification and assuming they would be allowed to use the HS2 wires from Sheffield to Chesterfield, having to run a greater distance under diesel than electric power (111 miles diesel, 106 miles electric - without dispensation over that HS2 section, the split is 124 diesel, 93 electric), the speed of operation under electric power is likely to be severely stunted on the MML racetrack on the southern end of the route.

The question was raised regarding concerns over the specification of current wires, and the answer was surprisingly candid.

The DfT spokesman confirmed that:

1. Yes, indeed, this is true - electric traction is limited to 100mph Bedford to London under current route specifications.
2. There are NO plans to improve this section in Network Rail's CP6 programme (2019-2024). It may possibly be included in CP7 (2025-2029).
3. Replacing the wires will require both transformers and catenary to be completely replaced and this will mean Thameslink services would have to be suspended during any works, unless they themselves can draft in enough diesel traction for "drags" or stop-gap operation (spoiler - they won't be able to with current frequencies).
4. An additional stop at Kettering will be added to all timetabled services to accommodate a power change. That's coming from the DfT spokesman, not me - power changes "on the fly" were dismissed at the meeting.

(Regarding the fourth point, why they didn't have the foresight to at least finish electrification at Leicester, where all intercity trains stop anyway, is beyond me. If you live in Kettering, congratulations! By a quirk of ridiculously poor planning, your relatively small town is mooted to become a key interchange for all MML services, even if that means your mate down the road in Wellingborough is going to lose their direct London service to accommodate you in the timetable!)

Diesel traction runs at up to 125mph on most sections south of Bedford. This means losing 25mph from the schedule over 80 miles of track, which adjusting for the superior acceleration of electric traction would still cost the electric haulage 5-8 minutes of time non-stop. Factor in the power change stop (up to an extra 5 minutes), and there is zero chance that the proposed new stock could match current timetables, never mind the proposed 6 trains per hour due from 2019.

So in a nutshell, even if the line were electrified throughout, they need to sort those wires out ASAP or there are going to be major timetable issues. People have questioned the bi-mode stock's ability to run to timetable on the diesel section, but they won't be able to even match it on the main chunk of the electrified section either, and that's the fault of poor planning from Network Rail more than anything!

I like the Mk. 5 idea, if only because the traction is already there and it requires minimum faffing around - they just have to make the coaches compatible. Alternatively, they could just cascade Mk. 4s and compatible locomotives like many have said, though they may have to plump for 67s rather than 68s as the former can do 125mph. There are enough sitting around in store that could do the job with a bit of fixing up, certainly - is their wiring compatible with the Mk 4s?

Final point - in my subjective view, the current EMT set-up isn't "broke" in the sense that they're punctual and relatively comfortable (Meridian pong aside), so I do worry about attempts to "fix" it, however old the HSTs are becoming!

 

[mallard]

So, as expected, cancelling modernisation leads to nothing but bad news for the MML. Grayling's magical bi-modes won't be able to run the current timetable, let alone the blatant lies of 20-minute savings between London and Sheffield.

Basically, the only reason they're persisting with this downgrade plan is to get pollution-spewing diesels out of London; because clearly only Londoners are entitled to clean air.

If there's manufacturing capacity or some obligation to purchase extra bi-modes, it makes far more sense for them to go to XC. Longer stretches under the wires, additional not-yet-cancelled modernisation projects that they could take advantage of, less need for off-wires 125mph capability and no under-specced existing wiring. If there's a need to replace the HSTs on MML, ex-XC Voyages can fill the gap.

Part of me suspects that the plan is to make the MML slower in order to "fix" the business case for the poorly sited "East Midlands Hub" on HS2, but that's not going to be operational until around 2040...

 

[mushroomchow]

So, as expected, cancelling modernisation leads to nothing but bad news for the MML. Grayling's magical bi-modes won't be able to run the current timetable, let alone the blatant lies of 20-minute savings between London and Sheffield.

...

Part of me suspects that the plan is to make the MML slower in order to "fix" the business case for the poorly sited "East Midlands Hub" on HS2, but that's not going to be operational until around 2040...

Point 1 - Pretty much, yes.

Point 2 - That's more the fault of the Midlands Engine insisting that it was to be allowed classic compatability with HS2, which was never going to happen given the mooted speed requirement of 186mph. They subsequently planned all their future developments on this completely unrealistic idea. Councils up and down the route were sold a lie, essentially, in believing that the proposed bi-modes would be "future-proofed" for a route they were never going to be allowed to operate on. Those same councils and stakeholders are now tripping over themselves to pretend they never wanted bi-mode trains in the first place, even though they were their biggest proponents at first and have only just realised that the two plans were incompatible.

It's not even clear if they'll be allowed to use the "special case" wires between Chesterfield and Sheffield, as I mentioned.

It's been an open secret in transport planning in the East Midlands for a while that "all roads lead to Toton" - which is all well and good until you realise that the onward connectivity is not going to happen without having to change trains.

Anyway, naughty me getting side-tracked. The HSTs will be a big gap to fill if they are replaced, given that both the Leeds and Nottingham services rely heavily on their availability.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The better option in my opinion would be to keep HST's until you can electrify properly, then replace with fully electric new stock.

The problem is it could be 15 to 20 years before that happens. I'm interested to know how the local media reacted when electrification north of Kettering was scrapped because I suspect that their reaction was somewhat muted. Electrification isn't the priority for the vast majority of travellers and with a seemingly hard Brexit on the cards we are likely to see more budget cuts. Assuming that the electric trains are able to run at 125 mph between Bedford and London in the future a new order for bi-mode trains appears to be only the sensible option.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I like the Mk. 5 idea, if only because the traction is already there and it requires minimum faffing around - they just have to make the coaches compatible. Alternatively, they could just cascade Mk. 4s and compatible locomotives like many have said, though they may have to plump for 67s rather than 68s as the former can do 125mph. There are enough sitting around in store that could do the job with a bit of fixing up, certainly - is their wiring compatible with the Mk 4s?

Can class 67's run at 125 mph for sustained periods of time? Not only that but I don't think their acceleration is anything like good enough.

 

[mallard]

Electrification isn't the priority for the vast majority of travellers

Only because "the vast majority of travellers" don't understand that electrification is vital to having a fast, reliable and cost-efficient railway.

Assuming that the electric trains are able to run at 125 mph between Bedford and London in the future a new order for bi-mode trains appears to be only the sensible option.

No, it would only be sensible if the bi-modes could exceed existing timings on both the wired and diesel sections of the route and there was a plan to extend the wires over time over the rest of the route.

Since none of that is ever going to happen, they don't make sense. Even by your logic; there is no plan to upgrade the catenary south of Bedford.

 

[Roast Veg]

Alternatively, they could just cascade Mk. 4s and compatible locomotives like many have said, though they may have to plump for 67s rather than 68s as the former can do 125mph. There are enough sitting around in store that could do the job with a bit of fixing up, certainly - is their wiring compatible with the Mk 4s?

A 67 with a Mk4 set would never reach 125 on the MML, it simply does not have the acceleration.

 

[NotATrainspott]

A bi-mode capable of 222 equivalent performance on diesel isn't beyond the wit of man. Only 60% of the vehicles in the standard IEP/AT300 product are powered because the driving vehicles are unpowered and performance needs to be consistent across half- and full-length trains. If you're ordering only full-length trains, you can have a higher proportion of powered vehicles. All seven intermediate vehicles in a nine car set could be powered, with the larger fuel tanks and different engine mapping of the 802 variant.

Of course, this doesn't solve the issue of trains being delivered on time for the 2020 deadline. I don't really know how that's going to be resolved without the judicious use of derogations.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Only because "the vast majority of travellers" don't understand that electrification is vital to having a fast, reliable and cost-efficient railway.

On reflection perhaps I should have said tax payers. When political parties are trying to win votes they know that for many voters transport is way down on the list of priorities and electrification is even further down the list.

 

[RichmondCommu]

No, it would only be sensible if the bi-modes could exceed existing timings on both the wired and diesel sections of the route and there was a plan to extend the wires over time over the rest of the route.

Since none of that is ever going to happen, they don't make sense. Even by your logic; there is no plan to upgrade the catenary south of Bedford.

Perhaps something similar to a class 802 could be used with its engines running up to 125 mph, in which case the current timings would still be achieved. The whole point of using bi-modes is because the trains are required to travel over electrified and non electrified routes.

Interestingly I've previously read on this forum that DfT had stated that the wiring south of Bedford would be upgraded to allow 125 mph

 

[43074]

Final point - in my subjective view, the current EMT set-up isn't "broke" in the sense that they're punctual and relatively comfortable (Meridian pong aside), so I do worry about attempts to "fix" it, however old the HSTs are becoming!

Yes I agree, I'd be very happy with Voyagers or even Adelantes to replace the HSTs if it enabled EMT services to maintain (and improve) their journey times compared to now. All the indications seem to be that a combination of curtailing electrification to Kettering, the new Thameslink timetable and bi-modes will result in a backwards step with the December 2020 timetable change for both journey times and connectivity up and down the route. Frankly I think the DfT official must have been talking rubbish (oh what a surprise...) at the event in Leicester as if the technology is there to switch between diesel & electric on the move (as the 800s do) there's no reason that couldn't be applied to the MML, and no operator would have 3tph stopping at Kettering for nothing more than an operational reason because of the time penalty of stopping alone.

Interestingly I've previously read on this forum that DfT had stated that the wiring south of Bedford would be upgraded to allow 125 mph

Yes, I thought this was definitely on the cards, a 2023 completion date was being floated around.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Yes I agree, I'd be very happy with Voyagers or even Adelantes to replace the HSTs if it enabled EMT services to maintain (and improve) their journey times compared to now. All the indications seem to be that a combination of curtailing electrification to Kettering, the new Thameslink timetable and bi-modes will result in a backwards step with the December 2020 timetable change for both journey times and connectivity up and down the route. Frankly I think the DfT official must have been talking rubbish (oh what a surprise...) at the event in Leicester as if the technology is there to switch between diesel & electric on the move (as the 800s do) there's no reason that couldn't be applied to the MML, and no operator would have 3tph stopping at Kettering for nothing more than an operational reason because of the time penalty of stopping alone.

Well exactly! Indeed I can only assume that the DfT representative was not armed with the full facts before he attended the meeting.