Future for HST on MML

[43096]

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.

From a reliability point of view it would be better to convert the stock to three-phase as it removes the static converters, which is both extra weight and something else to go wrong.

Not sure about Mark 4s, but the aircon etc on LHCS Mark 3s actually runs using 415V three phase, which comes from the motor-alternator (or static converter on the Chiltern sets).

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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?

which is why the HST spec mark three sets required a running class 43 on one end of the rake when hauled by a class 91 - hence the class 43s equipped with the remote controls for the class 91 and permanent frnt drawgear being known as surrogate DVTs

this was required because class 91 ETS is standard because the mk 4 stock was specificed with standard ETS as are 'hauled stock ' mk 3s

 

[sd0733]

With EMT now receiving MTU engined power cars in the form if the ex GC examples surely it would make sense if the fleet has a bit of a longer term future to draft in surplus GW or EC power cars to replace the VP185 examples at EMT when those start to become available. Crew and fitter training ought to be next to zero and it gives a common fleet of more modern engined power cars.

 

[edwin_m]

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.

Bedford is actually 50 miles from London and over much of this 125mph is either not permitted or not achievable. From memory the saving from increasing the speed for HSTs/222s a few years back was two or three minutes, but that may have included the 100mph+ sections north of Bedford.

 

[XCTurbostar]

With EMT now receiving MTU engined power cars in the form if the ex GC examples surely it would make sense if the fleet has a bit of a longer term future to draft in surplus GW or EC power cars to replace the VP185 examples at EMT when those start to become available. Crew and fitter training ought to be next to zero and it gives a common fleet of more modern engined power cars.

No because that mean the enthusiasts wont be able to froth over anything!

 

[mushroomchow]

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.

Adelantes, yes - under-rated trains, even with FGW's attempt to turn them into grounded aeroplanes. Voyagers, dear god no.

The only reason I'm really giving the Meridians any credit is because they're better in every way than their predecessors - they're still not great and I prefer a Mk. 3, to the point that I will plan my journeys to London to try and get a HST. The main reason I'm such a proponent for replacing the HSTs with hauled stock is to avoid however possible the "voyager-isation" of the MML, which would probably be enough to convince me to start either taking the train from Nuneaton or just driving when visiting London.

Going off on a tangent, does anybody else find the seats on Meridians extremely uncomfortable over long distances? There's this kind of ball-shaped groove in the front centre of the seat, which I presume is supposed to be ergonomic but ultimately makes me feel infertile by the time I pull into St. Pancras.

 

[mallard]

There's no particular reason why cascaded Voyagers couldn't have an internal refurbishment to bring them in line with the Merdians. I've got to disagree about the Median seating; by far the most comfortable long-distance seating on the current network (with the possible exception of a first class IC70) although the "leather" in first class is horrible.

Basically EMT's comfort levels (for me) go: IC70 First Class, 222 Standard Class, IC70 Standard Class, 222 First Class.

EMT have totally ruined the standard class IC70s recently by fitting them with rock-hard overstuffed seat cushions. Very uncomfortable and the added height means the table and armrests are now too low.

Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that the MML is being run down in preparation for becoming a secondary/regional route once HS2 opens. It seems the plan is to do it pre-emptively to exaggerate the benefits of HS2 (which otherwise wouldn't be able to provide competitive overall journeys from Nottingham, Derby or Leicester, once you factor in the time it will take to get to EMH). The days of the MML being a true InterCity route are very much numbered; it'll be fully run down long before HS2 arrives in the area (assuming the Leeds branch isn't cancelled) meaning they'll be at least a decade of truly awful transport in the East Midlands for purely political reasons.

 

[Chris125]

Paul Maynard MP has given a written answer confirming plans to upgrade the wires between London and Bedford.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-09.106743.h&s=speaker:24764#g106743.r0

We are developing plans to adjust the Overhead Line Equipment between Bedford and London in order to enable the new trains coming into service on the Midland Main Line from 2022 to run at the improved line speeds.

 

[edwin_m]

Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that the MML is being run down in preparation for becoming a secondary/regional route once HS2 opens. It seems the plan is to do it pre-emptively to exaggerate the benefits of HS2 (which otherwise wouldn't be able to provide competitive overall journeys from Nottingham, Derby or Leicester, once you factor in the time it will take to get to EMH). The days of the MML being a true InterCity route are very much numbered; it'll be fully run down long before HS2 arrives in the area (assuming the Leeds branch isn't cancelled) meaning they'll be at least a decade of truly awful transport in the East Midlands for purely political reasons.

In that case we await your similar allegation for the ECML and WCML, key destinations on which are served far more effectively by HS2 than those on the MML are.

Of the four largest non-London MML destinations Leicester benefits not at all from HS2 (excepting the relatively minor flow to Leeds and beyond), Derby and Nottingham city centres will disbenefit if the centre of activity goes to Toton and existing services are downgraded, and only at Sheffield does HS2 provide a better service than the MML could. The need to retain Leicester's links to London, Derby and Nottingham logically leads to the retention of fast London-Derby and London-Nottingham trains, although I agree that Sheffield's MML service will be semi-fast to focus on intermediate rather than London journeys.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There's no particular reason why cascaded Voyagers couldn't have an internal refurbishment to bring them in line with the Merdians. I've got to disagree about the Median seating; by far the most comfortable long-distance seating on the current network (with the possible exception of a first class IC70) although the "leather" in first class is horrible.

Basically EMT's comfort levels (for me) go: IC70 First Class, 222 Standard Class, IC70 Standard Class, 222 First Class.

EMT have totally ruined the standard class IC70s recently by fitting them with rock-hard overstuffed seat cushions. Very uncomfortable and the added height means the table and armrests are now too low.

Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that the MML is being run down in preparation for becoming a secondary/regional route once HS2 opens. It seems the plan is to do it pre-emptively to exaggerate the benefits of HS2 (which otherwise wouldn't be able to provide competitive overall journeys from Nottingham, Derby or Leicester, once you factor in the time it will take to get to EMH). The days of the MML being a true InterCity route are very much numbered; it'll be fully run down long before HS2 arrives in the area (assuming the Leeds branch isn't cancelled) meaning they'll be at least a decade of truly awful transport in the East Midlands for purely political reasons.

HS2 will only affect the MML after 2033. That's 16 years from now. There's precious little point making things worse before then, as the InterCity demand will be growing and growing on the MML up until that date.

 

[mallard]

Of the four largest non-London MML destinations Leicester benefits not at all from HS2 (excepting the relatively minor flow to Leeds and beyond), Derby and Nottingham city centres will disbenefit if the centre of activity goes to Toton and existing services are downgraded, and only at Sheffield does HS2 provide a better service than the MML could.

Exactly. So why is the station at Toton even being built, since it benefits very few people? Will the powers that be allow it to become a deserted white elephant? I very much doubt that.

The only way to make Toton viable is to effectively force people to use it. That means downgrading the MML. I've given the numbers in previous postings, but in summary; unless you can easily get from the center of any nearby city to Toton in around 15 minutes or less, HS2 cannot offer competitive end-to-end journeys for passengers who currently use the MML (with the possible exception of the small number of passengers travelling from Nottingham/Leicester to Leeds that you mention; and that's only because the fast Nottingham-Leeds services were cut in the 1980s).

HS2 will only affect the MML after 2033. That's 16 years from now. There's precious little point making things worse before then, as the InterCity demand will be growing and growing on the MML up until that date.

I doubt it'll be operational until around 2040 given the record of major British infrastructure projects. However, if it's left until the last minute to spoil the MML people will be able to clearly see the fact that the HS2 overall journey times are slower than previous journeys via the MML. Thus, the government starts the process well in advance so that HS2 looks like a major improvement.

There's no need to do anything similar to the WCML or ECML since HS2 actually offers genuine improvements for those routes. Besides, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds all have a far stronger political "voice" than anywhere in the East Midlands; especially those areas lucky enough to have Metropolitan Mayors and PTEs.

Personally, I think that by the time the HS2 phase 2 Leeds branch is operational, the MML timetable will look something like (not including Thameslink): 3tph St Pancras - Luton Airport Parkway ("Luton Express"), 2/3tph St Pancras - Corby. 1/2tph Bedford - Nottingham (all stops), 1/2tph Bedford - Sheffield (all stops). Additional local services connecting Leicester, Nottingham and Derby to Toton. A reduced cross-country service between Derby and Sheffield (long-distance passengers "encouraged" to change at Birmingham and Sheffield/Leeds) Maybe a few peak-time extras and extensions. Certainly nothing approaching an "InterCity" service.

And before the moderators get all trigger-happy: All the above is my own personal opinion and should not be taken as fact. I've deliberately avoided mentioning any particular companies, organisations or individuals by name. No allegations or accusations of malintent are intended. Only a cold, unemotional reading of political mood and transport trends regarding the East Midlands.

 

[Roast Veg]

I really don't agree @mallard. You said that HS2 justifies itself in overall journey times for Sheffield, the ECML and the WCML - so why then does there need to be a hidden agenda to get Toton built? What's the motivation?

 

[mushroomchow]

Paul Maynard MP has given a written answer confirming plans to upgrade the wires between London and Bedford.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-09.106743.h&s=speaker:24764#g106743.r0

I'll believe it when I see it, given that his fellow staff member who is far more engaged with the franchise consultation seemed pretty sure that it won't be included in Network Rail's CP6 plans and will probably be a CP7 consideration. 2029 is a more realistic introduction date, which means 7 years of wasted potential from the new units.

If they find a way to keep Thameslink's service running in any capacity and simultaneously manage to get the wires and transformers completely replaced over 80 miles of track by 2022, as the DfT told me to my face needs to happen, I will personally hold my hands up and say that the government have done a cracking job.

It will NEVER happen though. If you remember, you can bring this back up in 2022 if you want and we'll see what's happened by then.

 

[222001]

I'll believe it when I see it, given that his fellow staff member who is far more engaged with the franchise consultation seemed pretty sure that it won't be included in Network Rail's CP6 plans and will probably be a CP7 consideration. 2029 is a more realistic introduction date, which means 7 years of wasted potential from the new units.

If they find a way to keep Thameslink's service running in any capacity and simultaneously manage to get the wires and transformers completely replaced over 80 miles of track by 2022, as the DfT told me to my face needs to happen, I will personally hold my hands up and say that the government have done a cracking job.

It will NEVER happen though. If you remember, you can bring this back up in 2022 if you want and we'll see what's happened by then.

The MML is a two track railway until 1200 every Sunday, and then sometimes has further two track running for the rest of the day. Depending on the amount of work needed, I'm pretty sure they could do the majority of it in that period.

 

[ashworth]

Some of this discussion here concerning the possible running down of the MML in the coming years sounds a bit like what happened 50 years ago to the Great Central.
Wasn’t part of the argument for running the GC down and finally closing it, in addition to it being a duplicate route, the fact that it did not run through and stop at any major centres of population south of Leicester. I don’t think HS2 is going to run through any major centres of population or stop south of Toton! If the GC had been retained and modernised for at least 125 mph running with HSTs or even electrified, does anyone have any ideas what journey times from Sheffield, Nottingham and Leicester would have been like to London Marylebone? With trains from Sheffield just calling at Nottingham Victoria, perhaps Loughborough, Leicester and then fast to London perhaps HS2 to the East Midlands and Yorkshire what not have been needed.

 

[mushroomchow]

The MML is a two track railway until 1200 every Sunday, and then sometimes has further two track running for the rest of the day. Depending on the amount of work needed, I'm pretty sure they could do the majority of it in that period.

It won't be from the 2019 timetable change, when they're looking at intensifying the EM franchise including adding additional Sunday and morning / evening services. It's a key requirement of the ongoing franchise tender process - I'm not sure they'd want to go to the trouble of introducing extra capacity on Sundays only to have to strip it back mere months later for a multi-year project.

It's also ignoring A) fitting what will be a major project into an already saturated Network Rail CP6 schedule and B) getting funds to do it - modern electrification equipment isn't cheap, as the recent DfT omnishambles will tell you.

 

[222001]

It won't be from the 2019 timetable change, when they're looking at intensifying the EM franchise including adding additional Sunday and morning / evening services. It's a key requirement of the ongoing franchise tender process - I'm not sure they'd want to go to the trouble of introducing extra capacity on Sundays only to have to strip it back mere months later for a multi-year project.

It's also ignoring A) fitting what will be a major project into an already saturated Network Rail CP6 schedule and B) getting funds to do it - modern electrification equipment isn't cheap, as the recent DfT omnishambles will tell you.

What exactly needs doing to it to "upgrade" it? I take it we're talking a GEML renewals level here?

 

[Roast Veg]

What exactly needs doing to it to "upgrade" it? I take it we're talking a GEML renewals level here?

It's not cleared for multiple pantograph running at 125mph.

 

[edwin_m]

Some of this discussion here concerning the possible running down of the MML in the coming years sounds a bit like what happened 50 years ago to the Great Central.
Wasn’t part of the argument for running the GC down and finally closing it, in addition to it being a duplicate route, the fact that it did not run through and stop at any major centres of population south of Leicester. I don’t think HS2 is going to run through any major centres of population or stop south of Toton! If the GC had been retained and modernised for at least 125 mph running with HSTs or even electrified, does anyone have any ideas what journey times from Sheffield, Nottingham and Leicester would have been like to London Marylebone? With trains from Sheffield just calling at Nottingham Victoria, perhaps Loughborough, Leicester and then fast to London perhaps HS2 to the East Midlands and Yorkshire what not have been needed.

The largest place served only by the GC London Extension was Lutterworth. Although it also served larger places, notably Rugby as well as Leicester and Nottingham, these were also on other routes that were not planned for closure.

HS2 actually uses the GC alignment or something very close to it between about Aylesbury and Brackley (and again briefly near Staveley) so one could speculate about trains transferring to the GC near Brackley to provide through London trains to the centres of Leicester and Nottingham. However it would not be competitive for London to Leeds, York or beyond, as the ECML is mostly a 125mph route and significnatly shorter. Also it wouldn't provide for cross-country journeys from Birmingham as HS2 does.

Before anyone asks, the GC is virtually obliterated over much of its length, including the section through Nottingham, and Leicester isn't much better.

 

[222001]

It's not cleared for multiple pantograph running at 125mph.

Indeed, so what level of works and disruption will be required on the MML, to upgrade the wires from 100 - 125?

 

[hooverboy]

It's not cleared for multiple pantograph running at 125mph.

if it's cleared for 110mph then 7 mk3/4 car(2 first 5 std)+ class 90+dvt for st pancras-corby is quite sufficient.acceleration on those is pretty good.
stopping at st albans-luton-bedford-weillingborough-kettering-corby.
just needs a small mod for one first class carriage to cope with new diability rules. Still a vast improvement on present 5 car meridian 2 cars (first)of which are half empty and the other three packed like sardines

should be able to pick them up cheap on lease and way more comfortable than class 700.

save 800's/222s for the fast runs.

 

[43096]

With EMT now receiving MTU engined power cars in the form if the ex GC examples surely it would make sense if the fleet has a bit of a longer term future to draft in surplus GW or EC power cars to replace the VP185 examples at EMT when those start to become available. Crew and fitter training ought to be next to zero and it gives a common fleet of more modern engined power cars.

You mean the more modern engine that uses more fuel, more oil and goes less time between overhauls than the VP?

 

[43074]

if it's cleared for 110mph then 7 mk3/4 car(2 first 5 std)+ class 90+dvt for st pancras-corby is quite sufficient.acceleration on those is pretty good.
stopping at st albans-luton-bedford-weillingborough-kettering-corby.
just needs a small mod for one first class carriage to cope with new diability rules. Still a vast improvement on present 5 car meridian 2 cars (first)of which are half empty and the other three packed like sardines

should be able to pick them up cheap on lease and way more comfortable than class 700.

save 800's/222s for the fast runs.

Rubbish, similar trains to 379s would be ideal for those, 90s+Mk3s are not massively quick compared to an EMU and when mixing with high speed trains and other high accelerating electric trains you need trains which are quick off the mark and relatively fast, otherwise you have the same problems with stopping services as you have now. Stopping at St Albans would not be a good idea anyway because station dwell times would be massively excessive with the end doors.

 

[Domh245]

if it's cleared for 110mph then 7 mk3/4 car(2 first 5 std)+ class 90+dvt for st pancras-corby is quite sufficient.acceleration on those is pretty good.
stopping at st albans-luton-bedford-weillingborough-kettering-corby.
just needs a small mod for one first class carriage to cope with new diability rules. Still a vast improvement on present 5 car meridian 2 cars (first)of which are half empty and the other three packed like sardines

should be able to pick them up cheap on lease and way more comfortable than class 700.

save 800's/222s for the fast runs.

Given that the DfT Consultation has the corby services down as a "commuter" type service, the chance of it getting (comparatively) lethargic 90+mk3+dvts to operate it are slim to none, it'll almost certainly be a modern EMU, quite possibly one that will be going off-lease soon, so that it can utilise it's superior acceleration to not affect Thameslink. The 800s are the potential issue, there's no point getting bimodal trains if they can't do 125mph under most of the wiring that they would be using!

 

[Roast Veg]

The 800s are the potential issue, there's no point getting bimodal trains if they can't do 125mph under most of the wiring that they would be using!

Agreed, the only way 802-like sets can be justified is if the upgrade works are set to occur not long after their introduction, otherwise the extra expense is wasted.

 

[hooverboy]

Given that the DfT Consultation has the corby services down as a "commuter" type service, the chance of it getting (comparatively) lethargic 90+mk3+dvts to operate it are slim to none, it'll almost certainly be a modern EMU, quite possibly one that will be going off-lease soon, so that it can utilise it's superior acceleration to not affect Thameslink. The 800s are the potential issue, there's no point getting bimodal trains if they can't do 125mph under most of the wiring that they would be using!

javelin perhaps?.that would work.
definitely needs the st albans stop though as that is where the footfall is. luton airport parkway for hst is generally deserted,might be down to ticketing also as they have some strange rules about groupsaves and easyjet tickets.

 

[Domh245]

javelin perhaps?.that would work

Javelins wouldn't really work because they're all tied up with the South Eastern franchise long term...

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed, so what level of works and disruption will be required on the MML, to upgrade the wires from 100 - 125?

I'd have thought the biggest task would be to replace the headspans by rigid beams, as this can only be done with all four tracks closed. May not strictly be necessary for 125mph but Network Rail would probably (even now) prefer a more costly solution with less long term liability. It also makes the subsequent replacement of the wires easier, as I think under headspans the removal of any one wire would cause the other three to move around so all four tracks would have to be blocked to electric or at least coast through with pan down.

 

[edwin_m]

javelin perhaps?.that would work.
definitely needs the st albans stop though as that is where the footfall is. luton airport parkway for hst is generally deserted,might be down to ticketing also as they have some strange rules about groupsaves and easyjet tickets.

The 700s ought to serve St Albans as it's a relatively short distance into London with heavy loadings. If the Corby trains stopped there they would either be carrying fresh air further north or to busy leaving London in the peak for longer distance passengers to get on board.

Luton Airport Parkway could have some sort of Gatwick-style premium ticket, enforced at the barriers to the St Pancras high level platforms. The slower Nottingham and Sheffield trains could possibly also stop there to provide a service to and from the north which is useful to airport passengers. Other than that I'd not stop the slower trains south of Kettering, and ideally not stop the fast ones south of Market Harborough although that does require the slower Sheffield train to stop instead of the fast Nottingham.

As to rolling stock for the Corby trains, the 379s are an obvious possibility - not sure if 110mph rated but similar Electrostars are. 707s might be another option, or perhaps the 360s off GE and HEx?

 

[Roast Veg]

As to rolling stock for the Corby trains, the 379s are an obvious possibility - not sure if 110mph rated but similar Electrostars are. 707s might be another option, or perhaps the 360s off GE and HEx?

The 379s would need the pantographs replacing and software modifications (and maybe traction motor modifications?) - they're also expensive to lease right now but that may not be the case for a future MML lease.