IC225 for GEML?

[ChristopherJ]

Since the announcement of the IEP is to replace the IC225 on the ECML, discussion has stated the class 91s are inadquete for cascade to the GEML.

Would a more efficient method be to cascade the Mk4 carriages to work with the existing class 90s?

The class 90 and Mk4 worked on the ECML with GNER between London - Leeds about 10 years ago, the concept is operationally proven. The GEML 90s inherited from ICWC have since been overhauled by one/NXEA and are now more reliable than ever in their operational lifespan. The core problem on the GEML Norwich route is the Mk3 carriages with their dated interiors and hinged slam doors rather than loco performance and reliability.

 

[AndyLandy]

There's been a lot of discussion around this area in the past.

Mk4 carriages hauled by 90s would be a quick-n-easy solution for the GEML, assuming they don't have a better use remaining as IC225 sets (possibly on the MML)

 

[route:oxford]

Since the announcement of the IEP is to replace the IC225 on the ECML, discussion has stated the class 91s are inadquete for cascade to the GEML.

Would a more efficient method be to cascade the Mk4 carriages to work with the existing class 90s?

The class 90 and Mk4 worked on the ECML with GNER between London - Leeds about 10 years ago, the concept is operationally proven. The GEML 90s inherited from ICWC have since been overhauled by one/NXEA and are now more reliable than ever in their operational lifespan. The core problem on the GEML Norwich route is the Mk3 carriages with their dated interiors and hinged slam doors rather than loco performance and reliability.

Then you've still go the wasted space of the Loco & DVT.

Order some 4 Coach IEPs DMS-MS-MS-DF

Then run them as

DMS-MS-MS-Mk4-Mk4-Mk4-Mk4-DF

 

[L+Y]

Then you've still go the wasted space of the Loco & DVT.

Order some 4 Coach IEPs DMS-MS-MS-DF

Then run them as

DMS-MS-MS-Mk4-Mk4-Mk4-Mk4-DF

Your solution seems to me to swap a waste of space to a waste of money, for more IEP.

225s to the Midlands, and a full Chiltern-style overhaul of mk3s for GEML seems like the best way to allocate resources, in my view: possibly ordering new locomotives too. Cascaded HST trailers, and Meridians, can be passed on to Chiltern, freeing up their DMUs for Northern, perhaps?

 

[EM2]

Why are the 91s thought inadequate, but the 90s not?

 

[Monty]

Then you've still go the wasted space of the Loco & DVT.

Order some 4 Coach IEPs DMS-MS-MS-DF

Then run them as

DMS-MS-MS-Mk4-Mk4-Mk4-Mk4-DF

Assuming the IEP could be made to be compatible with Mk4 coaches as trailers. I imagine the coaching stock will always find a use elsewhere even if the 91s don't, MML seems to be the most sensible suggestion for the time being.

 

[route:oxford]

Your solution seems to me to swap a waste of space to a waste of money, for more IEP.

225s to the Midlands, and a full Chiltern-style overhaul of mk3s for GEML seems like the best way to allocate resources, in my view: possibly ordering new locomotives too. Cascaded HST trailers, and Meridians, can be passed on to Chiltern, freeing up their DMUs for Northern, perhaps?

It doesn't have to be IEPs, it could be any current EMU.

 

[jopsuk]

Why are the 91s thought inadequate, but the 90s not?

I don't understand either. If the mark 4s go somewhere electrified, they'll go with the 91s.

 

[Loki]

I don't understand either. If the mark 4s go somewhere electrified, they'll go with the 91s.

Reliability issues. The idea is that the 91's are replaced with Traxx. Of course that was before IEP but it could still be on the table.

 

[ainsworth74]

Why are the 91s thought inadequate, but the 90s not?

91s have questionable reliability (they'd need a lot spending on an overhaul) whilst the GEMLs 90s are more reliable than they've ever been thanks to the work put in by TOC/ROSCO. Further the 91s are geared for 140mph not the 110mph that the 90s are (I assume, either way the 90s are going to be geared for less) this means the 91s acceleration is poor compared with the 90s which on a short route like the GEML is quite important.

 

[AndyLandy]

Why are the 91s thought inadequate, but the 90s not?

The 90s have a better acceleration profile than the 91s. 91s are great on long distance IC services with few stops. The 90s don't go as fast, but on a shorter service with more calling points, they'll outpace the 91s.

Age-wise, the two classes are about the same. The 90s hail from about 1987, the 91s from about 1989, so there's not a lot in it in that regard.

 

[ash39]

I'm quite into the idea of sending the mk4's to work with the 90's on the GA route. Only problem is there are 31 sets of 9 coaches, and GA would probably want to stick to the 7 coach formation (I don't know what the loadings are like on that route, or the platform lengths) and there are only 15 90's. What would happen to the remaining coaches, as that only accounts for 105 of the 279 mk4s?

Also what do you do with the 91's, which are still only 25 years old and very powerful capable locos. They have their reliability issues but they do astronomical mileage, probably the most on the network along with the voyagers and pendolinos.

I'd love to see 91's on freight just for the novelty value!

 

[Bishopstone]

I question whether the GEML really needs locos and coaches.

I think an OHL version of the class 444 would have been ideal for London-Norwich services, worked as a single unit off-peak and pairs in the peak. As the 444 is no longer available, I would go for a class 379 (or similar) EMU solution to Mk 3 & class 90 replacement. Do away with the cafe and go over to at-seat trolley catering.

However, assuming an EMU solution is rejected, Mk 4 plus class 90 sounds good: but far less flexible around peaks and troughs in demand.

 

[SeanG]

91s were initially designed for freight services also IIRC, one of the reasons for the blunt end cab

 

[dk1]

I'm quite into the idea of sending the mk4's to work with the 90's on the GA route. Only problem is there are 31 sets of 9 coaches, and GA would probably want to stick to the 7 coach formation (I don't know what the loadings are like on that route, or the platform lengths)!

Don't understand what you mean. GA doesn't operate 7-coach trains. They run 12 sets on any given day & most are load 10 with around 3 load 9 sets (inc DVT). Loadings are very heavy with frequent reports of Trains full & standing peak & off-peak.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I question whether the GEML really needs locos and coaches.

I think an OHL version of the class 444 would have been ideal for London-Norwich services, worked as a single unit off-peak and pairs in the peak.

Overcrowding would be horrendous. Off-peak travel is very strong on the Norwich route. I can give you an example of 197 passengers on the 13.00 up from Norwich one day last week & 510 on the 15.30 return. Today's 10.00 from Norwich & 10.00 from London where both standing room only.

 

[ainsworth74]

Don't understand what you mean. GA doesn't operate 7-coach trains. They run 12 sets on any given day & most are load 10 with around 3 load 9 sets (inc DVT). Loadings are very heavy with frequent reports of Trains full & standing peak & off-peak.

Perhaps they were getting mixed up with XC that operate their HSTs in 2+7 formations?

 

[dk1]

Perhaps they were getting mixed up with XC that operate their HSTs in 2+7 formations?

If we had HSTs they might stand more of a chance of actually reaching Great Yarmouth

 

[ainsworth74]

If we had HSTs they might stand more of a chance of actually reaching Great Yarmouth

Well yes but it would be rather a waste of perfectly good overhead electrification don't you think

 

[JamesRowden]

I'm quite into the idea of sending the mk4's to work with the 90's on the GA route. Only problem is there are 31 sets of 9 coaches, and GA would probably want to stick to the 7 coach formation (I don't know what the loadings are like on that route, or the platform lengths) and there are only 15 90's. What would happen to the remaining coaches, as that only accounts for 105 of the 279 mk4s?

Also what do you do with the 91's, which are still only 25 years old and very powerful capable locos. They have their reliability issues but they do astronomical mileage, probably the most on the network along with the voyagers and pendolinos.

I'd love to see 91's on freight just for the novelty value!

If one includes the class 90's that are presently being used for freight, there seem to be enough class 90s for all of the mark 4s (Wikipedia sates that 50 were built and that two caught fire). If the mark 3 DVTs could easily be refurbished and operated with mark 4s, the mark 4s could be used in shorter formations with a class 90 and a mark 3 or a mark 4 DVT. However, making 225s shorter will in fact increase the acceleration of a class 91 at low speed and so make them perfectly good locomotives for services that stop more frequently:

Class 91
Max tractive Effort: 190 KN
Mass: 81.5 T

Class 90
Max tractive Effort: 258 KN
Mass: 84.5 T

Mark 4 Carriage
Mass: 41.5 T

Therefore, max accelerations of formations:
Class 91 (9 carriages): 190 / (81.5 + 9*41.5) = 0.418 m/s^2
Class 90 (9 carriages): 258 / (84.5 + 9*41.5) = 0.563 m/s^2
Class 91 (6 carriages): 190 / (81.5 + 7*41.5) = 0.575 m/s^2
class 90 (6 carriages): 258 / (84.5 + 7*41.5) = 0.688 m/s^2

I think that these results show that if the mark 3 DVTs can be refurbished and modified to work with mark 4s (if they don't already), that the mark 4s and 90s and 91s could be distributed in the following way:

• Midland Mainline services that do not have frequent stops and are presently operated by HSTs
  Use long class 91 formations
• Midland Mainline intercity services with more stops and are presently run by 222s
  Use long 90 formations or short 91 formations (depending on capacity requirements)
• Great Eastern Mainline intercity services
  Use 90s (or short 91s if it is difficult to get the 90s from the freight operators or the services do not need long formations)
• Cross Country services between Bournemouth/Southampton/Reading and the North West (and possibly the North East if a route is electrified in CP6)
  Use the remaining mark 4s and class 91s (and possibly class 90s) (use 91s in short formations only)

 

[ash39]

Yeah I made the mistake there, for some reason I had it in my head they ran 90+7+DVT formations from last time I saw them.

That's some nice sums there James. I'm not sure any operators would take a risk on any of the mothballed 90's at Crewe, nor would DBS probably want to sell them.

 

[AndyLandy]

I question whether the GEML really needs locos and coaches.

I think an OHL version of the class 444 would have been ideal for London-Norwich services, worked as a single unit off-peak and pairs in the peak. As the 444 is no longer available, I would go for a class 379 (or similar) EMU solution to Mk 3 & class 90 replacement. Do away with the cafe and go over to at-seat trolley catering.

However, assuming an EMU solution is rejected, Mk 4 plus class 90 sounds good: but far less flexible around peaks and troughs in demand.

A new batch of EMUs would be fine and dandy, assuming the business case stacks up to afford them. Something like an AC version of the 444 has been suggested before (oh, and don't get hung up on 444s allegedly being 'no longer available' -- I have no doubt if we tendered for something like it, we'd get offers)

• Midland Mainline services that do not have frequent stops and are presently operated by HSTs
  Use long class 91 formations
• Midland Mainline intercity services with more stops and are presently run by 222s
  Use long 90 formations or short 91 formations (depending on capacity requirements)
• Great Eastern Mainline intercity services
  Use 90s (or short 91s if it is difficult to get the 90s from the freight operators or the services do not need long formations)
• Cross Country services between Bournemouth/Southampton/Reading and the North West (and possibly the North East if a route is electrified in CP6)
  Use the remaining mark 4s and class 91s (and possibly class 90s) (use 91s in short formations only)

I've toyed with similar ideas to this, splitting up Mk4s into shorter sets, refurbising Mk3 vehicles (or possibly even 442 trailers) but I'm not sure if the numbers add up. Are there enough vehicles?

As for the other 90s, I heard a rumour somewhere that their current owners (DB Schenker?) are highly unlikely to sell them. Not sure of the veracity of that claim, but it might put the dampers on finding the locomotives you'd need.

 

[306024]

Whatever the future requirements for the GEML, one thing that is certain is seating capacity is paramount. As has been said, many trains are full and standing, and wasting potential seating capacity with a loco and DVT is not the way forward, however 'nice' it may be to have loco hauled trains on this route.

The 5 car EMU argument has been put forward, but splitting and attaching units between the peaks would require a lot of additional stabling capacity at the London end of the route that simply doesn't exist. And then there is the additional driver cost for the extra ECS involved.

Each unit would need all the requirements of a modern train, further eating into seating capacity. Perhaps a fixed formation EMU is arguably a better option? It would be less responsive to demand, but accurately predicting passenger demand is not an exact science anyway. There is no real optimal answer.

Out of casual interest, I don't know what the seating capacity of an ECML 225 is, perhaps someone could do the sums and kindly post them please?

 

[jopsuk]

On the West Anglia, the lack of stabling near Liverpool Street is partly dealt with by doing the splitting/joining at Cambridge- there's a couple of post peak (in the morning) and pre-peak (in the afternoon) very limited stop 12 car services for just this reason, outside of the normal clockface off-peak stopper/semi fast pattern.

 

[jimm]

91s were initially designed for freight services also IIRC, one of the reasons for the blunt end cab

No they weren't. The intention was that at night they would operate on sleepers and mail services, as ECML Deltics and 47s did before them, but the sleeper services were all moved to Euston and BR's move to sectorisation, with dedicated locomotive pools, put paid to any prospect of them working postal services.

 

[SeanG]

No they weren't. The intention was that at night they would operate on sleepers and mail services, as ECML Deltics and 47s did before them, but the sleeper services were all moved to Euston and BR's move to sectorisation, with dedicated locomotive pools, put paid to any prospect of them working postal services.

I stand corrected. Must have been the mail services I was thinking of

 

[w0033944]

I'm not sure that MUs are the answer; as has already been stated, many of the Norwich-London services are packed. It seems that many members from other parts of the country assume that East Anglia is an uninhabited wasteland which therefore requires less in the way of train services.

 

[AndyLandy]

I'm not sure that MUs are the answer; as has already been stated, many of the Norwich-London services are packed. It seems that many members from other parts of the country assume that East Anglia is an uninhabited wasteland which therefore requires less in the way of train services.

I don't see how that follows. Most of the reasons for suggesting an EMU design are so that the entire platform lengths can be used for passenger-carrying vehicles, thus increasing capacity.

Oh, and that neatly brings me to my next question, what are platform lengths like on the GE? Could the route comfortably accommodate 10x23m trainsets? What about 11- or 12-car?

 

[Dave1987]

There is no need for Norwich-London services to split during the off-peak because anyone who travels on the services will know they are well filled all day (apart from the early morning down Norwich services) this pretense that 5 car emus are needed so they can split during the off peak is complete rubbish. They need to be full strength all day. So it's either a brand new full length 10 intercity type EMU or the cascaded 225's from east coast.

Why not use the cheaper 225's?

 

[306024]

I don't see how that follows. Most of the reasons for suggesting an EMU design are so that the entire platform lengths can be used for passenger-carrying vehicles, thus increasing capacity.

Oh, and that neatly brings me to my next question, what are platform lengths like on the GE? Could the route comfortably accommodate 10x23m trainsets? What about 11- or 12-car?

Yeh I didn't follow that either

The maximum length of train on the GEML is 12 car EMU's at 20m each = 240m. Liverpool St is the constraining factor, there are longer platforms at Norwich and Ipswich, and others could be lengthened, but Liverpool St would be difficult. Most of the current InterCity sets are 90 + 9MkIII + DVT, which is around 242m. Therefore a 10 car 23m EMU would fit, but no longer.

Glad someone else thinks splitting 5 cars is nonsense, I thought it was only me! As for using cheaper 225s, back to my question of how many passengers do they seat?

 

[GNERman]

When Virgin originally planned for TGV's on the ECML, didn't they plan to hand over the 225 sets to WAGN for Cambridge/Kings Lynn services...?