GWR West Fleet IEP Cascade Update

[FordFocus]

From what I understood, it wasn't the Wabtec/Chiltern style conversion. The OP suggested that the coach ends were to be cut off entirely and replaced with a new module.

That I'm intrigued about. Heard a rumour another TOC wanted to do something similar but never really took it seriously. Is this a Wabtec idea?

 

[455driver]

The braking performance of every HST formation is well known and well understood, but the theory of HST braking performance is that each vehicle can brake its own mass equally.

Weight distribution doesn't really come into it, a power car on its own should be able to stop from the same speed in the same distance as a Mark 3 coach on its own. That's not really the case of course, Mark 3 coaches are more effective than they need to be and can add a bit of extra brake force, so longer formations can stop in shorter distances, but a 2+4 formation is fine for braking performance.

I will remember that when I am dropping down the hill into St Germans and the bloody thing aint slowing down!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Today, 24/6/16, and info received from Fleet Engineering Manager in person. With the well known IEP delays, the number of 165/166 units retained at Reading depot will increase. The rest for Bristol as planned for Cardiff-Portsmouth. This means not all 158s will head west so it looks increasingly likely that the 2+4 HST plan will be signed off by the DfT in July. These will be used for the Bristol to Penzance corridor and will have sliding doors and CET fitted and should carry green livery.
The coach ends will effectively be chopped off and a new design modular door area will be fitted hence cost saving on measuring each coach on an individual basis.
These will be used in conjunction with the AT300s to form the planned Dec 2018 timetable upgrade.
They should remain in service until at least the end of the franchise.

This sounds like a silly idea to me. If power-doors on mrk3s are suddenly affordable (I thought it had been decided that they were not, hence the class 802 order for the PAD-Penzance route) the logical thing to do in my mind is to keep the IC125s in 2+8 formations on the PAD-Penzance route (alongside the 9-car 802s) and use 5-car 802s or 800s on Cardiff-Portsmouth instead of downgrading that route from the regional express 158s to outer-suburban networker turbos.

 

[43096]

No trials were mentioned. It was stated about dwell time at platforms hence sliding doors but future legislation also makes that a requirement. No mention of which sets or power cars but remember, some are owned not leased. The number going to Scotrail is not affected.

GWR does not own any HSTs itself. They are all leased; it just happens that some (12 power cars, 42 trailers) are leased from the parent company FirstGroup (technically they were actually bought by First Rail Holdings).

Also, sliding doors are an operational need, not legislative. Mark 3s can be made PRM-TSI compliant with slam doors.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

This sounds like a silly idea to me. If power-doors on mrk3s are suddenly affordable (I thought it had been decided that they were not, hence the class 802 order for the PAD-Penzance route) the logical thing to do in my mind is to keep the IC125s in 2+8 formations on the PAD-Penzance route (alongside the 9-car 802s) and use 5-car 802s or 800s on Cardiff-Portsmouth instead of downgrading that route from the regional express 158s to outer-suburban networker turbos.

It's a very good idea.

There are very good reasons why IEP and Class 802 units will work out of Paddington.

The Class 802s are needed to fit in and around the IEP (Class 800 and Class 801) units on the GWML out of Paddington down to Newbury.

HST sets don't work in terms of acceleration and pathing particularly well, and any failures will be difficult to recover with fewer sets around and the probability of IEP sets in the intervening signalling sections.

The power doors saga is probably going to come in at much the same cost as ERTMS compatibility work for HST to work out of Paddington anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That I'm intrigued about. Heard a rumour another TOC wanted to do something similar but never really took it seriously. Is this a Wabtec idea?

Don't know if it's a Wabtec idea, but I did hear the module would allow fully sealed gangways.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Wouldn't chopping the ends off and putting new ends on compromise the crash structure just like putting in a pan well would?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Wouldn't chopping the ends off and putting new ends on compromise the crash structure just like putting in a pan well would?

That was my thought and why I mentioned needing to go through approval.

 

[edwin_m]

A poster on another forum claims to have been involved with engineering acceptance of the NR New Measurement Train and clearly believes a short-formed HST will be underbraked. However I suppose this may be is down to some axles of test trains being unbraked, or addressable by reducing the number of brakes that can be isolated simultaneously, and if they don't go above 100mph the required brake performance is less anyway.

 

[broadgage]

At a time of rapidly increasing passenger numbers it seems rather odd to be actively reducing train lengths.
If the HST coaches can be affordably modified as described, then it would seem to be worth modifying a greater number of vehicles so as to keep full length trains.
With some rebuilt, full length HSTs AND the new stock, the railway might even be able to cope at busy times.

We keep being told that it is unreasonable for the railway to make provision for rush hours, weekends, bank holidays, cup finals, rugby matches, school holidays, start/end of university terms, Christmas, Easter, and other rare or exceptional events.

The retention of some full length trains would help a lot.
As the HSTs have lower acceleration, but the same top speed as the new DMUs, It would seem sensible to consider use of the HSTs on limited stop services and to utilise the new DMUs on services that make more frequent stops.
An additional few services from Paddington that serve only say Taunton, Exeter, and Plymouth, and principle stations west of Plymouth would do much to relieve overcrowding.

Alternatively, these rebuilt HSTs could be utilised elsewhere and the money thereby saved spent on lengthening the new DMUs so as to cope with PEAK flows not just the average.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I remember hearing that the GWR HST trailers were built slightly off and that it would therefore be more complicated to do the power door conversion versus later Mk3s. Could this mean that ScotRail's HSTs get the GWR treatment rather than the Chiltern one?

 

[455driver]

The 2+4 HSTs will be replacing 2 or 3 coach 150/153 combinations so will be an increase in capacity, there is no need for them to be bigger than 2+4 or 2+5 but would need to retain the SDO equipment for certain stations such as Worle.

My cynical side finds it odd that we had to have the IEPs/AT300s because the HSTs were too expensive to make compliant but as soon as the deal is done it is announced that it is suddenly much cheaper to do the necessary mods and Scotrail will be taking on a lot of the HSTs, funny that isn't it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I remember hearing that the GWR HST trailers were built slightly off and that it would therefore be more complicated to do the power door conversion versus later Mk3s. Could this mean that ScotRail's HSTs get the GWR treatment rather than the Chiltern one?

They all rolled out of the same factory after being built on the same jigs so don't know where that 'idea' came from, sounds like typical platform end cowmanure to me.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Wouldn't chopping the ends off and putting new ends on compromise the crash structure just like putting in a pan well would?

It depends what forms the crash structure on the Mark 3 below solebar and whether this new module will add additional deformational performance.

Roof cutting on Mark 3 units isn't an issue, the Class 321s are getting air conditioning modules, adding a pantograph well isn't an issue. The issue would be adding the weight of a transformer from the underframe.

 

[The Ham]

My cynical side finds it odd that we had to have the IEPs/AT300s because the HSTs were too expensive to make compliant but as soon as the deal is done it is announced that it is suddenly much cheaper to do the necessary mods and Scotrail will be taking on a lot of the HSTs, funny that isn't it.

Other than the HST Fleet has 490 coaches the IEP Fleet is 550 coaches, meaning that we could have coped with some HST's and some IEP's but then the HST's wouldn't have the same capability as the IEP's so could have caused operational issues. It also would have meant that new trains would have been needed, which would have been fine for Scotland but could have caused issues for GWR.

 

[IanXC]

Presumably if 2+4 poses braking performance issues for GWR it does for ScotRail? Probably more so in that, if I understand the routes correctly, there will be more 100mph+ running for the Scottish sets?

 

[455driver]

Other than the HST Fleet has 490 coaches the IEP Fleet is 550 coaches, meaning that we could have coped with some HST's and some IEP's but then the HST's wouldn't have the same capability as the IEP's so could have caused operational issues. It also would have meant that new trains would have been needed, which would have been fine for Scotland but could have caused issues for GWR.

I assume you are counting the whole IEP fleet not just the GWR fleet, if so your figures are out by quite a margin and you are being rather disingenuous with your numbers, or as I used to put it, taking the p1--!

EC will be giving up all their HSTs and going entirely IEP/91 so those HST sets could be added to the GWR sets, the EC IEPs would need to be deducted from your number of 550 because we are talking about what is and would be available to the GWR franchise!

If your IEP numbers are just for the GWR fleet then I concede the point.

 

[richw]

A poster on another forum claims to have been involved with engineering acceptance of the NR New Measurement Train and clearly believes a short-formed HST will be underbraked. However I suppose this may be is down to some axles of test trains being unbraked, or addressable by reducing the number of brakes that can be isolated simultaneously, and if they don't go above 100mph the required brake performance is less anyway.

GWR ran some trial 2+3/4 Hst runs through Cornwall last year I think it was. I've seen photos of the set on Flickr. I'm sure that would have highlighted any issues.

 

[Class 170101]

Didn't MML run a short HST set, with slam doors, on occasion of they were short of a 222 in the past? How long was it?

 

[richw]

From Flickr search

https://flic.kr/p/pkWwRa

https://flic.kr/p/Dk75Zs

Not forgetting the NMT

 

[dgl]

Had to add it but aren't there some mk3 coaches which already have power doors going spare , would need modifying but wouldn't need the ends cutting off.

Sent from my Lumia 625 using Tapatalk

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Presumably if 2+4 poses braking performance issues for GWR it does for ScotRail? Probably more so in that, if I understand the routes correctly, there will be more 100mph+ running for the Scottish sets?

There's no running above 100mph in Scotland for the routes the short HST sets will be operating on (from memory). The same applies for the proposed HST routes under GWR operation.

 

[class26]

There's no running above 100mph in Scotland for the routes the short HST sets will be operating on (from memory). The same applies for the proposed HST routes under GWR operation.

Correct. The only running in Scotland over 100 mph is on the ECML south of Edinburgh and the WCML south of Glasgow, neither of which these "new" HST`s will run on.

 

[IanXC]

There's no running above 100mph in Scotland for the routes the short HST sets will be operating on (from memory). The same applies for the proposed HST routes under GWR operation.

Having consulted the Sectional Appendix I think you're absolutely right. Plenty of HST 100 but nothing higher.

Interestingly the SA lists a minimum of 2+3 to use the differential speed limits.

 

[455driver]

GWR ran some trial 2+3/4 Hst runs through Cornwall last year I think it was. I've seen photos of the set on Flickr. I'm sure that would have highlighted any issues.

It was 2+4/5.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Had to add it but aren't there some mk3 coaches which already have power doors going spare , would need modifying but wouldn't need the ends cutting off.

Cease and desist with immediate effect!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's no running above 100mph in Scotland for the routes the short HST sets will be operating on (from memory). The same applies for the proposed HST routes under GWR operation.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Had to add it but aren't there some mk3 coaches which already have power doors going spare , would need modifying but wouldn't need the ends cutting off.

Perhaps you are thinking of the withdrawn Irish examples. Wrong gauge, apparently in poor condition (corrosion) and I suspect all scrapped by now.

 

[antharro]

Perhaps you are thinking of the withdrawn Irish examples. Wrong gauge, apparently in poor condition (corrosion) and I suspect all scrapped by now.

Except for ten which are owned by Belmond and will be turned into the Grand Hibernian...

http://www.railusers.ie/forum/showthread.php?p=75249

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Except for ten which are owned by Belmond and will be turned into the Grand Hibernian...

http://www.railusers.ie/forum/showthread.php?p=75249

Thanks for the link and apologies for my ignorance.

 

[The Ham]

I assume you are counting the whole IEP fleet not just the GWR fleet, if so your figures are out by quite a margin and you are being rather disingenuous with your numbers, or as I used to put it, taking the p1--!

EC will be giving up all their HSTs and going entirely IEP/91 so those HST sets could be added to the GWR sets, the EC IEPs would need to be deducted from your number of 550 because we are talking about what is and would be available to the GWR franchise!

If your IEP numbers are just for the GWR fleet then I concede the point.

I was counting the whole 80x fleet ( I.e. including the trains for the Cornish services) for GWR only, as that includes gives a fair comparison on the HST fleet. If you just count the IEP Fleet you have to deduct the number of HST's which are needed to run the Cornish services.

 

[Rich McLean]

5 sets required for hourly Plymouth to Penzance stoppers. 2 sets for semi fast between the 802s between Plymouth and Cornwall and 3 for Cardiff to Taunton. 1 set spare. Some of these will work as through services between between Plymouth and Taunton In the morning and evenings

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It was 2+4/5.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cease and desist with immediate effect!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


110mph after Bridgewater.

It's not a route I'm all that familiar with (yet). I'm more concerned (if that's the right word) with the 110mph section between Pewsey and Lavington which will see the Hitachi stock doing just 100mph. It makes Newbury to Westbury a reasonably attractive first step in the push to extend electrification to Exeter.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The Class 802s are needed to fit in and around the IEP (Class 800 and Class 801) units on the GWML out of Paddington down to Newbury.

HST sets don't work in terms of acceleration and pathing particularly well, and any failures will be difficult to recover with fewer sets around and the probability of IEP sets in the intervening signalling sections.

It is almost certainly true that the AT300 series units will accelerate faster, at least under the wires, than IC125s. But this was, apparently, not considered too great a problem from August 2011 (when I'm sure Modern Railways stated that IC125s would remain on the PAD-Plymouth/Penzance services, with IEP on the Oxford/Bristol/Swansea routes) to shortly before the new franchise agreement which brought the branding change to GWR. Even when that deal was introduced, there were two Service Level Commitment options for post-2018, the first of which assumed continued operation of IC125s on the PAD-PLY/PNZ route. I seem to recall reading on one forum or other that it had been decided the power-door mrk3s were unaffordable and hence the order for class 802s.

At a time of rapidly increasing passenger numbers it seems rather odd to be actively reducing train lengths.
If the HST coaches can be affordably modified as described, then it would seem to be worth modifying a greater number of vehicles so as to keep full length trains.
With some rebuilt, full length HSTs AND the new stock, the railway might even be able to cope at busy times.

This is exactly my point, rather than reducing train lengths to 5-car class 802 on many PAD-PLY/PNZ services, I feel the 2+8 IC125s should be retained on the PAD-PLY/PNZ route. That August 2011 Modern Railways also stated that stakeholders did not want the underfloor-engined class 222 units for such a long route, so it makes more sense to me to use the 5-car 800s and/or 802s on regional express services where fewer passengers will be going long distances and where 5 coaches is an increase in capacity, rather than a reduction as it would be on GW INTERCITY routes.

I remember hearing that the GWR HST trailers were built slightly off and that it would therefore be more complicated to do the power door conversion versus later Mk3s. Could this mean that ScotRail's HSTs get the GWR treatment rather than the Chiltern one?

What I've read online (or perhaps in Modern Railways) is that ALL mark 3s are not built to exact dimensions and every one is slightly different (this was discovered while fitting the Chiltern ones with power-doors). That meant Chiltern-style mods were very time consuming and expensive, so FirstGWR decided they would have to order the 802s. However, then it turned out ScotRail had thought of a cheaper way of fitting the plug-doors, so presumably all future mrk3 plug-door convertions, whether of IC125 trailers or LHCS, will use the new technique and not be like Chiltern's. I could be wrong of course because I don't work in the rail industry.

I assume you are counting the whole IEP fleet not just the GWR fleet, if so your figures are out by quite a margin and you are being rather disingenuous

GW IEP is 18x 9-car sets and 32x 5-car sets diagrammed each day if I recall correctly. That's 322 diagrammed vehicles. That's diagrams, to resource that Agility Trains West will I think have a fleet of 21x 9-car and 36x 5-car, or 369 vehicles. That doesn't include the Plymouth/Penzance class 802 order, and on that basis I think it is an overall increase in capacity, HOWEVER, much of the increase seems to be thanks to the planned doubling of frequency between London and Bristol Temple Meads to 4tph, other routes (at least based on the DfT's draft diagrams, which are apparently inoperable in some cases) such as London-Swansea would see less capacity than today. According to Wikipedia, the class 802 fleet for GW is 173 vehicles, a total of 542 new vehicles across the Great Western fleet, but keep in mind that the class 802s are NOT IEP units.

There's no running above 100mph in Scotland for the routes the short HST sets will be operating on (from memory). The same applies for the proposed HST routes under GWR operation.

There is some 110mph running on the Bristol-Taunton route I believe.

5 sets required for hourly Plymouth to Penzance stoppers. 2 sets for semi fast between the 802s between Plymouth and Cornwall and 3 for Cardiff to Taunton. 1 set spare. Some of these will work as through services between between Plymouth and Taunton In the morning and evenings

IC125s on stoppers, 5-car DMUs on IC routes and totally inappropriate 165s with 2+3 seating, no UEGs and 1/3, 2/3 doors on the franchise's premier regional express service :roll::cry::roll: (the latest Modern Railways states that all 166s will now stay at Reading depot, but doesn't mention what would run Cardiff-Portsmouth, so assume it is still planned to be Turbos). What a mess. Cardiff-Portsmouth needs 5-car end-door units, INTERCITY routes mostly need 7-9 coaches and Networker Turbos should NEVER BE USED ON REGIONAL EXPRESS SERVICES.