IC225 for GEML?

[D365]

You still need the same amount of spare sets available regardless of if they were all the same train. For example with the 360's Siemens are obliged to provide 20 of the 21 units for traffic each day. You are essentially saying that by having all the trains exactly the same you could reduce the amount of spare trains you had. That just wouldn't work and you would end up with more short formed and cancelled trains due to a lack of spare sets.

Let's say that we have TOC O which operates Lines A and B with Train Classes 1 and 2. Both are based at Depot C, but Class 1 only operates Line A and Class 2 only Line B. This isn't due to incompatibility with infrastructure, just the fact that driver roster X only signs Line A and Class 1, whilst roster Y only sign Line B and Class 2. As much as anything, this is my attempt to explain the situation, so please bear with me and correct me where I am mistaken please or improve on my explanation for my benefit.

As I understand it, this is the situation with Greater Anglia, with Line A being West Anglia, Line B being Great Eastern, Class 1 being 317, Class 2 being 321 and so on. If a newer fleet of Class 7 (379) was ordered to replace some of both Classes 1 and 2, and drivers on each route were trained on Class 7, that would give more of a common fleet in service, on standby and under maintenance. The commonality must be a good thing, with all EMUs being maintained at Ilford, even if not applicable to the entire GA fleet.

Back on the subject of this thread do I take no one wants the 225 sets cascaded from the east coast to GEML??

No point in it. Mk3 refurb, possibly with Traxx o.e, or 444-style/379 EMU replacement.

 

[SprinterMan]

Back on the subject of this thread do I take no one wants the 225 sets cascaded from the east coast to GEML??

I do, I think it is a great idea. Regear the 91s down from 140mph to 115mph to give them better acceleration, keep the Mallard interiors as they are superb (maybe touch them up a bit if they are looking a bit old) and there you go. Give all the Mark 3s to Chiltern, who can do their excellent refurbishment on them and operate them with new-build 68s which can then displace some 165s or 168s to Northern, who are in desperate need of quality DMU stock. As there are double the number of 91+Mk.4 sets as there are 90+Mk.3 sets, London to Norwich can go 3tph, the Harwich boat trains can get something more prestigious than the horrible 321s and they could also work some peak services and holiday services to Clacton. Norwich services could look something like this:

1tph Norwich - Diss - Ipswich - Colchester - London Liverpool St.

1tph Norwich - Diss - Stowmarket - Ipswich - Manningtree - Colchester - Chelmsford - Stratford - London Liverpool St.

1tph Norwich - Diss - Stowmarket - Ipswich - Manningtree - Colchester - Witham - Chelmsford - Shenfield - Stratford - London Liverpool St.

The last one could replace the current Ipswich stopper, with the Clacton train picking up the Marks Tey and Kelvedon calls, and either the Braintree train or the Colchester Town train picking up the Hatfield Peverel call. Alternatively, after the Ipswich avoiding curve opens and freight is diverted away, these stops could be picked up by extending the Harwich branch line train to London using the EMUs freed up from replacing the Ipswich stopper:

1tph Harwich Town - Dovercourt - Harwich Intl. - Wrabness - Mistley - Manningtree - Colchester - Marks Tey - Kelvedon - Witham - Hatfield Peverel - Chelmsford - (maybe Shenfield) - Stratford - London Liverpool St.

Adam

 

[D365]

I do, I think it is a great idea. Regear the 91s down from 140mph to 115mph to give them better acceleration, keep the Mallard interiors as they are superb (maybe touch them up a bit if they are looking a bit old) and there you go. Give all the Mark 3s to Chiltern, who can do their excellent refurbishment on them and operate them with new-build 68s which can then displace some 165s or 168s to Northern, who are in desperate need of quality DMU stock. As there are double the number of 91+Mk.4 sets as there are 90+Mk.3 sets, London to Norwich can go 3tph, the Harwich boat trains can get something more prestigious than the horrible 321s and they could also work some peak services and holiday services to Clacton...

It was debated on the MML Electrification thread whether the 31 IC225s (of which 28 are typically available in service, I believe) would be enough for the main long-distance services to Nottingham and Sheffield. tbtc worked out that 20 trains should cover the basic four services per hour, excluding peak service and maintenance. If they are suitable, send the whole lot over!

I've already explained the other options for GEML; if you lot would like another Mk3 train very soon, I'm sure Virgin wouldn't mind lending the Pretendolino for a bit

 

[TheBigD]

Posted on the MML thread...

Current off peak service needs...

STP-SHF fasts = 5 units (all services are 222/7car, except 0855/1127 which 2x222/5car)
STP-SHF semis fasts = 6 units (usually 222/5 car but 1 diagram a 4 car)
STP-NOT fasts = 5 units (usually a HST with long layovers at STP)
STP-NOT stopper = 5 units (usually 222/5 car but 1 diagram a 4 car)
STP-COR = 3 units (all off peak services are 222/5 car)

TOTAL = 24 units

Some peak services are doubled up 222's and some are HST's. There are variations on the service pattern at peak times, Corby requires an extra set in the evening peak due to longer turnround times at Corby (amongst other things).

Currently on the ECML the Mk4 sets cover 26 diagrams...

 

[Dave1987]

Let's say that we have TOC O which operates Lines A and B with Train Classes 1 and 2. Both are based at Depot C, but Class 1 only operates Line A and Class 2 only Line B. This isn't due to incompatibility with infrastructure, just the fact that driver roster X only signs Line A and Class 1, whilst roster Y only sign Line B and Class 2. As much as anything, this is my attempt to explain the situation, so please bear with me and correct me where I am mistaken please or improve on my explanation for my benefit.

As I understand it, this is the situation with Greater Anglia, with Line A being West Anglia, Line B being Great Eastern, Class 1 being 317, Class 2 being 321 and so on. If a newer fleet of Class 7 (379) was ordered to replace some of both Classes 1 and 2, and drivers on each route were trained on Class 7, that would give more of a common fleet in service, on standby and under maintenance. The commonality must be a good thing, with all EMUs being maintained at Ilford, even if not applicable to the entire GA fleet.



No point in it. Mk3 refurb, possibly with Traxx o.e, or 444-style/379 EMU replacement.

I see what you mean but its a bad example according to our fitters underneath a 321 is virtually the same as a 317. I would have thought having trains that are purpose built to cater specifically to a particular lines needs would be better but hey I'm clearly wrong in thinking that.

 

[D365]

I see what you mean but its a bad example according to our fitters underneath a 321 is virtually the same as a 317. I would have thought having trains that are purpose built to cater specifically to a particular lines needs would be better but hey I'm clearly wrong in thinking that.

Well, thank you for being honest! Yes, I have noted 317s and 321s are very similar (second generation EMUs are all similar in their ways), aside from the lack of inter-unit gangways on the latter (as an aside, why didn't BREL just continue building 317s (or 319s), without a gangway if so desired, as with the 150/1s? Perhaps the cab needed updating for crash protection...). Did BR feel the 317s wouldn't cater for GEML or WCML or was the design update due to technical reasons? Remembering that the original 317s are supposed to have worked for a short time on WCML after BedPan before being transferred to WA/GN.

Something I've been curious about for a while, perhaps I should start my own topic

 

[Dave1987]

Well, thank you for being honest! Yes, I have noted 317s and 321s are very similar (second generation EMUs are all similar in their ways), aside from the lack of inter-unit gangways on the latter (as an aside, why didn't BREL just continue building 317s (or 319s), without a gangway if so desired, as with the 150/1s? Perhaps the cab needed updating for crash protection...). Did BR feel the 317s wouldn't cater for GEML or WCML or was the design update due to technical reasons? Remembering that the original 317s are supposed to have worked for a short time on WCML after BedPan before being transferred to WA/GN.

Something I've been curious about for a while, perhaps I should start my own topic

hock: you clearly know far far more than I do

 

[D365]

hock: you clearly know far far more than I do

I've learnt how to couple MUs and otherwise handle trains thanks to the wonders of YouTube, but I still don't know how to drive them!

 

[CC 72100]

I've learnt how to couple MUs

Quality tune to the start of that one!

 

[Tobbes]

Originally Posted by Dave1987
Back on the subject of this thread do I take no one wants the 225 sets cascaded from the east coast to GEML??

Originally Post by Sprinterman
I do, I think it is a great idea. Regear the 91s down from 140mph to 115mph to give them better acceleration, keep the Mallard interiors as they are superb (maybe touch them up a bit if they are looking a bit old) and there you go.

I agree, on the proviso that the acceleration was better than a 90 + Mark IIIs. No point in going above 100 mph if the linespeed isn't improved (which according to Bald Rick et al isn't going to happen for sensible cost reasons). I would be interested to know how many people interchange in Stratford - I'd have thought it was quite high in the peaks for access to Canary Wharf - in which case making it a normal stop (instead of Chelmsford!) would seem sensible.

Tobbes

 

[Eagle]

I'd have thought it was quite high in the peaks for access to Canary Wharf

And the Central line for the City and the West End. It's a much easier interchange than at Liverpool Street.

 

[Dave1987]

I've learnt how to couple MUs and otherwise handle trains thanks to the wonders of YouTube, but I still don't know how to drive them!

Lol the second half of that video we do day in day out. What that doesn't show you is when the dam butterflies won't come out because the pin that drops don't hasn't been greased and you have to get down and manually forced the coupling shut to get the butterfly out.

 

[dk1]

And the Central line for the City and the West End. It's a much easier interchange than at Liverpool Street.

Not forgetting the huge retail draw that is Westfield Stratford City.

 

[Manchester77]

I do, I think it is a great idea. Regear the 91s down from 140mph to 115mph to give them better acceleration, keep the Mallard interiors as they are superb (maybe touch them up a bit if they are looking a bit old) and there you go. Give all the Mark 3s to Chiltern, who can do their excellent refurbishment on them and operate them with new-build 68s which can then displace some 165s or 168s to Northern, who are in desperate need of quality DMU stock.

Not sure about the 168s but the 165s were built to take advantage of former broad gauge network and are wider than most trains, not sure if they could fit some routes.

As has been said in other threads if available chiltern would have much rather used DMUs. Also aren't chiltern supposed to be refurbishing some of their 168s to give them a 'mainline' interior?

 

[315804]

If the crossings were sorted, the signalling upgraded, the OLE retensioned, the power supply strengthened, the track maintenance enhanced (considerably), some bridges rebuilt, some embankments strengthened, places of (staff) safety provided for 100mph+ operation, some track renewed to 100mph+ standards, some of the curves realigned, and some junctions removed altogether, then most of the route is fit for 125. Exceptions are through Chelmsford, Colchester, Manningtree and Ipswich station areas but trains would be stopping there.

Assuming 125 where it is currently 100, and a train of Pendolinesque characteristics, the journey time saving London-Norwich is approx 8mins on today's stopping pattern. Roughly half this saving is due to the better acceleration / braking of the train, and half is due to the raised line speeds. This assumes that all the slower trains in front are shifted out of the way, these being the ones that call at wayside halts such as Shenfield, Witham etc.

With new trains it would be an awful lot of money to save 4 mins. Alternatively knock out a stop for free.

I guess this is a step too far then? :roll:

 

[Eagle]

Not sure about the 168s but the 165s were built to take advantage of former broad gauge network and are wider than most trains, not sure if they could fit some routes.

168s aren't broad. (Especially not the later ones which use the 170 bodyshell.)

 

[Class172]

168s aren't broad. (Especially not the later ones which use the 170 bodyshell.)

All 168s and 170s share the same body shell; it's just the 168/0s which have a networker style cab front.

 

[Bald Rick]

I guess this is a step too far then? :roll:

Well yes, but only because getting to Waterloo from the GE is a pain in the derrière.

 

[The Ham]

In terms of capacity the existing 225's have about 550 seats, whilst a pair of of 444's would have 668 seats, which would give an increase of about 20%.

Add to the possible extra revenue from the extra seats, there would be a reduction in costs associated with lower track access charges, 158.9ppm for a 9 coach 225 compared with 99.14ppm for a 10 coach 444. Which could mean that it is better value to get new EMU's.

Also, with regards to the "small fleet" problems with a fleet of EMU's could be overcome by ordering them at the same time as an order for stock for SWT's for their Salisbury-Waterloo once it's electrified (possibility with extra stock for their existing services).

 

[Martin222002]

Also, with regards to the "small fleet" problems with a fleet of EMU's could be overcome by ordering them at the same time as an order for stock for SWT's for their Salisbury-Waterloo once it's electrified (possibility with extra stock for their existing services).

Are there even any plans to electrify the line from Basingstoke to Salisbury, as this it the first I've heard of it?

Another option would be having a joint order for new InterCity EMUs for both the GEML and MML, meaning an order of around 40 to 45 10 car sets, though this would of cause remove two of the main potential homes for the 225/Mk4s.

 

[jimm]

Quote:
Back on the subject of this thread do I take no one wants the 225 sets cascaded from the east coast to GEML??

No point in it. Mk3 refurb, possibly with Traxx o.e, or 444-style/379 EMU replacement.

There is the rather obvious point that some of the Mk3s date back to 1975, when they entered service on the WCML, while the oldest Mk4s date back to 1989, so a tad less wear and tear than the Mk3s - and they already have power doors and retention tank toilets, so less expense involved than life-extending Mk3s.

 

[jopsuk]

Has the point been made that there's twice as many Mark 4 sets compared to what's required on the GEML?

 

[jimm]

Which is why MML may be a better home for them - but doesn't get away from the fact that some of those Anglia Mk3s are nearing their 40th birthday and will be well past it before any Mk4s come off the ECML.

 

[dk1]

Quote:
Back on the subject of this thread do I take no one wants the 225 sets cascaded from the east coast to GEML??



There is the rather obvious point that some of the Mk3s date back to 1975, when they entered service on the WCML, while the oldest Mk4s date back to 1989, so a tad less wear and tear than the Mk3s - and they already have power doors and retention tank toilets, so less expense involved than life-extending Mk3s.

I do. They would be just right but maybe using 90s rather than 91s. Only down side that still remains is the fact that we run the maximum length trains now & are still going to have the wasted space of the loco & to an extent the DVT. Although there can be upto 20 bikes loaded on occasions they are hardly profitable.

 

[Martin222002]

I do. They would be just right but maybe using 90s rather than 91s. Only down side that still remains is the fact that we run the maximum length trains now & are still going to have the wasted space of the loco & to an extent the DVT. Although there can be upto 20 bikes loaded on occasions they are hardly profitable.

I know Eversholt's plans were to move the kitchen from its current location to the DVT to creat more passenger seating space, but a kitchen on the GEML now would be as useful as the current luggage space on the DVTs now. Porterbrook however with its Mk3 plans had been looking at new build passenger DVTs to go with TRAXX loco's, so I guess Eversholt could be looking at the same in regards to the GEML.

 

[JamesRowden]

I do. They would be just right but maybe using 90s rather than 91s. Only down side that still remains is the fact that we run the maximum length trains now & are still going to have the wasted space of the loco & to an extent the DVT. Although there can be upto 20 bikes loaded on occasions they are hardly profitable.

I have just done some maths to look at the possibility of the MML and the GEML getting new stock and the 91s, mark 4s and 90s being handed over to Cross Country to operate electric spine services with a route being electrified between Sheffield and the ECML early in CP6.

My idea for Cross Country Electric Spine Service Pattern

• Bournemouth - Birmingham - Manchester 5hrs (11 trains)
• Heathrow - Birmingham - Liverpool 3hrs30m (8 trains)
• Southampton - Oxford - Bedford - Sheffield - Newcastle 6hrs (13 trains)

Total: 32 trains in service

I guess that about 35 sets are needed to cover spares.

This means that the 248 mark 4 carraiges could be distributed between services with 7 carraiges per set plus a DVT (some refurbished GEML mark 3 DVTs would be used to account for the lack of mark 4 DVTs).

This allows the locamotives to be distributed:

• 26 91s (Bournemouth - Manchester, Southampton - Newcastle)
• 10 90s (Liverpool-Heathrow)

This solution seems better than transfering the 225s to the MML and/or GEML because it allows trains to be built for the capacity/performance requirements of those lines and allows the 225s to be used on routes where the lack of capacity due to DVTs is not a problem. The extra storage space in DVTs would probably suit those who are using the Cross Country services.

 

[AndyLandy]

Are there even any plans to electrify the line from Basingstoke to Salisbury, as this it the first I've heard of it?

It seems highly unlikely to me. To get any real benefit, you'd need to electrify all the way to Exeter. If you're going to throw up knitting, you'll probably want to re-double the line in the process. Wiring as far as Salisbury seems pretty pointless, as you'll still need some kind of diesel traction to run the full service. So, unless we get a fleet of EMUs and DEMUs that are interoperable, it's probably not worth the effort.

To be honest, I can't see this even being a remote possibility until there are wires from Basingstoke to Waterloo. Otherwise, to do the job, you'll need diesel, DC and AC traction on the same train.

 

[Tobbes]

It seems highly unlikely to me. To get any real benefit, you'd need to electrify all the way to Exeter. If you're going to throw up knitting, you'll probably want to re-double the line in the process.

Agreed, but redoubling and electrifying WoEML would be great to see. CP7?

 

[59CosG95]

Agreed, but redoubling and electrifying WoEML would be great to see. CP7?

I second that! But another idea for the Mk4's IMO would be to send a 10-car set plus a 91 for a "Mk2 Pretendolino"- that way the Mk4's could be retained while the Mk3's go wherever they need to.

 

[D365]

I second that! But another idea for the Mk4's IMO would be to send a 10-car set plus a 91 for a "Mk2 Pretendolino"- that way the Mk4's could be retained while the Mk3's go wherever they need to.

You mean send it to Virgin/WC? They're easily going to be rid of their existing rake by the end of the decade for cost-cutting and avoiding DDA... Spot hire would be much more likely, and somehow I don't see that happening...