IC225 for GEML?

[TheGrew]

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.

I believe that the line to Salisbury is being considered for electrification so that an alternate route is available for freight from Basingstoke to Southampton, they were recently doing gauge works on this line for that reason.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

 

[ash39]

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.

I like this idea a lot, but I think that's because of the idea of loco-hauled decent sized trains back on Cross Country. In practice, probably won't happen. Few potential sticking points I can think of:

* Will passengers accept replacing 10yr old trains with 25yr old ones? We know loco hauled trains with more seating is better but it would have to be marketed correctly.

* Will those routes be fully electrified by 2019?

* Can mk3 DVT's work with mk4's? Can they be easily converted if not?

* 90's are only 110mph capable which probably rules out using them north of York, as they wouldn't keep Voyager timings.

I guess some mk4 TF's would have to be declassified to make up the new consists, which you would probably want to be DVT-TF-TFRB-TSOD-TSO-TSO-TSO-TSOE-Loco - not a major problem, they may even get fully overhauled depending on where they end up going.

From an enthusiasts point of view, it would be great to keep the 91's partly on the ECML (York-Glasgow at least) and when 91131 is retired to the NRM it will have spent it's entire working life passing the museum every day. Would be nice to see 90's and mk3 DVT's on other routes as well, for variety's sake.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just re-read your proposal and noticed you didn't plan for the Class 90's to head north of York anyway, so ignore that point!

Only thing is what do you do with the other 5 Class 90's and 5 Class 91's? I can't think of any other use for them. Open access maybe? Could hull trains use them if Hull gets wired?

 

[The Ham]

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.

By electrifying Basingstoke to Salisbury you could by at least 1/3 the fleet of DMU's which SWT's have (especially if you do the Salisbury 6 as well). As about 1/2 the services only go as far as Salisbury. It would be fairly easy (and therefore read cheap) to do as it's being/been cleared for freight and so there are no bridges or tunnels which would require more work to be done.

If you had it with an option to do a follow up order within (say) 3 years you could probably get the wires to at least Yeovil, which means you could do away with the need for the majority of DMU's running to London by have a cross platform change of train (with the DMU's possibly running Exeter-Westbury so as to provide a service between the two stations at Yeovil).

 

[Surreyman]

By electrifying Basingstoke to Salisbury you could by at least 1/3 the fleet of DMU's which SWT's have (especially if you do the Salisbury 6 as well). As about 1/2 the services only go as far as Salisbury. It would be fairly easy (and therefore read cheap) to do as it's being/been cleared for freight and so there are no bridges or tunnels which would require more work to be done.

If you had it with an option to do a follow up order within (say) 3 years you could probably get the wires to at least Yeovil, which means you could do away with the need for the majority of DMU's running to London by have a cross platform change of train (with the DMU's possibly running Exeter-Westbury so as to provide a service between the two stations at Yeovil).

Before electrification happens, the line west of Salisbury needs to be either fully doubled or at the very least more passing loops installed.
As a previous poster said, you can do twin voltage - DC Waterloo-Basingstoke & AC Basingstoke - Exeter or you could I suppose have Bi-mode DC Electric + Diesel but you cannot have all 3. (Well technically you probably could but it would be way too expensive/complicated).

 

[jopsuk]

I don't reckon tri-mode would be that tricky, really

 

[Class172]

I don't reckon tri-mode would be that tricky, really

I would imagine the unit to be more like the class 210 for some reason.

 

[ainsworth74]

* 90's are only 110mph capable which probably rules out using them north of York, as they wouldn't keep Voyager timings.

Seeing as 91s wouldn't be able to keep to Voyager timings it's sort of moot in any case!

 

[swt_passenger]

... It would be fairly easy (and therefore read cheap) to do as it's being/been cleared for freight and so there are no bridges or tunnels which would require more work to be done.

Clearance for W10/12 does not automatically provide clearance for OHLE as well, because as covered in previous threads W10/12 is all about opening out the corners for the rectangular containers, the overall height difference is trivial, less than a couple of inches.

Yes they will provide clearance for both if it is cost effective, but it is definitely not 100% coverage.

 

[ash39]

Seeing as 91s wouldn't be able to keep to Voyager timings it's sort of moot in any case!

Good point, but the difference between acceleration would surely not be as detrimental as running at 15mph less for quite a large section of the route?

I'd personally rather lose a few minutes off journey times in exchange for more seats . I realise it's not exactly progress though!

 

[The Ham]

Clearance for W10/12 does not automatically provide clearance for OHLE as well, because as covered in previous threads W10/12 is all about opening out the corners for the rectangular containers, the overall height difference is trivial, less than a couple of inches.

Yes they will provide clearance for both if it is cost effective, but it is definitely not 100% coverage.

However, if there was a need for more major amendments to structures to be done then often the extra cost in ensuring that it allows for OHLE is fairly minimal and so is carried out anyway (i.e. if you have to replace a bridge deck anyway setting it higher has, in comparison, next to no cost associated with it).

There is, however, the risk that there will be some structures which would need work to allow OHLE, but this would be less than if the clearance work hadn't been undertaken and so therefore would make it easier than it would have been.

 

[Bald Rick]

However, if there was a need for more major amendments to structures to be done then often the extra cost in ensuring that it allows for OHLE is fairly minimal and so is carried out anyway (i.e. if you have to replace a bridge deck anyway setting it higher has, in comparison, next to no cost associated with it).

There is, however, the risk that there will be some structures which would need work to allow OHLE, but this would be less than if the clearance work hadn't been undertaken and so therefore would make it easier than it would have been.

Hence why Gospel Oak - Barking is so expensive. THe bridges that needed rebuilding for W10 were rebuilt to electrification clearances, but the bridges that didn't need rebuilding, err, weren't. So there are some rather tricky structures to resolve.

 

[L&Y Robert]

Anybody know anything about the double-deck rolling stock I saw being built at Eastleigh in the late 40s? We were on a Works Visit and we were shown round this new innovation with some pride. The cars were finished, ready to roll, painted in Southern green. We climbed on board, looked round, sat in seats, discussed it with our Dad and the guide. But I never heard of them again (well, you wouldn't, would you, coming from Up North and still at school).

 

[ainsworth74]

There's some information on them here and here. By most measures they were not a roaring success.

 

[L&Y Robert]

There's some information on them here and here. By most measures they were not a roaring success.

Thanks Ainsworth74. Could it be true that we saw them at Easliegh do you think? That's where the works trip went that day, but my memory of the event is sketchy!

 

[AndyLandy]

(with the DMU's possibly running Exeter-Westbury so as to provide a service between the two stations at Yeovil).

Is there a chord there?

 

[dk1]

Is there a chord there?

Yeah, used it once on a charter & once on a diverted HST.

 

[ainsworth74]

Thanks Ainsworth74. Could it be true that we saw them at Easliegh do you think? That's where the works trip went that day, but my memory of the event is sketchy!

Not my speciality but I certainly think it would have been possible. Eastleigh by my understanding was one of the main, if not the main, works on the Southern Region (of whom their designer was the chief mechanical engineer and they were his baby) so it would have been logical, to me at least, for them to be built there.

 

[simon.exd]

* Will passengers accept replacing 10yr old trains with 25yr old ones? We know loco hauled trains with more seating is better but it would have to be marketed correctly.

Having travelled on the Chiltern Trains 67 with mark 3 stock I would say they would. To a non enthusiast looking at the refurb job Chiltern have done, they would think it was new stock.. A stunning job..

If more companies adopted this type of stock there would be a lot more happy passengers im sure.. Having travelled on a Voyager I would rather walk than suffer the cramped conditions passengers are faced with.. With passenger numbers being so high it has to make sense to utilise loco hauled as an option as much as possible..
And on a more serious note... if the network wants to electrify to Exeter I would be more than happy to spend my time at St Davids watching class 90s!!

 

[Polarbear]

Not my speciality but I certainly think it would have been possible. Eastleigh by my understanding was one of the main, if not the main, works on the Southern Region (of whom their designer was the chief mechanical engineer and they were his baby) so it would have been logical, to me at least, for them to be built there.

For info - the 4DD's were built at Eastleigh & Lancing works.

 

[joeykins82]

With passenger numbers being so high it has to make sense to utilise loco hauled as an option as much as possible

Whilst I agree with your comment about the quality of the Chiltern refurb and the superior atmosphere & comfort of current loco hauled stock compared to the current crop of 125mph capable MUs in service, it is passenger numbers that have effectively killed off loco haulage as an option on the main arterial routes. Loco and DVT take up 40-50m of a maximum train length of ~250m, whereas 125mph+ multiple units only need a third of the leading and trailing car unavailable to passenger use (~16m overall). Loco haulage also reduces the number of paths available compared to MU operation because their acceleration is poorer.

I'd much rather travel on an HST than a high speed DMU/DEMU (principally because of the reduced noise & vibration), and the only 125mph+ domestic EMU I've been on is the pendo which suffers from tiny windows, poor interior lighting (although cars F & U are much better on this front) and overhead luggage racks which can't actually store anything I'd describe as luggage. That said, I recognise that the improved service frequency and reduced journey time on the WCML would be impossible without the acceleration and tilt capabilities of the 390.

 

[SWTCommuter]

Anybody know anything about the double-deck rolling stock I saw being built at Eastleigh in the late 40s? We were on a Works Visit and we were shown round this new innovation with some pride. The cars were finished, ready to roll, painted in Southern green. We climbed on board, looked round, sat in seats, discussed it with our Dad and the guide. But I never heard of them again (well, you wouldn't, would you, coming from Up North and still at school).

You might find these interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22FWR3MmBIg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evWtXSuMGvY

 

[yorksrob]

Anybody know anything about the double-deck rolling stock I saw being built at Eastleigh in the late 40s? We were on a Works Visit and we were shown round this new innovation with some pride. The cars were finished, ready to roll, painted in Southern green. We climbed on board, looked round, sat in seats, discussed it with our Dad and the guide. But I never heard of them again (well, you wouldn't, would you, coming from Up North and still at school).

Very innovative, but not a patch on the traditional EPB in terms of comfort and dwell times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In terms of loco and coaches, would it not be possible to develop a DVT that contains passenger accommodation ?

 

[swt_passenger]

Very innovative, but not a patch on the traditional EPB in terms of comfort and dwell times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In terms of loco and coaches, would it not be possible to develop a DVT that contains passenger accommodation ?

Of course it would be possible. The rules that required DVT's (specified as no passengers or catering staff in a leading vehicle) for speeds over 100 mph were valid at the time the DVTs were built, but have since been removed from the group standards.

But such a vehicle would no longer be a DVT of course, it would just be a DTSO, DTFO, or DTCO dependent on seating class...

 

[Yew]

In terms of loco and coaches, would it not be possible to develop a DVT that contains passenger accommodation ?

Yes, that is one of Porterbrooks plans.

Also remember that DMU's have cabinets at each end of the carriage for electrical equipment, this adds up over a long meridian...

 

[yorksrob]

Ah, so loco and coaches aren't necessarily as space hungry as is made out !

 

[ainsworth74]

Ah, so loco and coaches aren't necessarily as space hungry as is made out !

I'm struggling to think about where these space hungry cabinets are though as I don't recall the ends of 222s being larger than say a Mk3 or Mk4...

 

[jopsuk]

Any "cabinets" at the ends of coaches will be in coache's energy abosrption zone, which will be something that any new carriages would be required to have anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Very innovative, but not a patch on the traditional EPB in terms of comfort and dwell times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In terms of loco and coaches, would it not be possible to develop a DVT that contains passenger accommodation ?

The stock previous to the current GE stock used a Mark 2 DBSO*, orginally developed and built for the Edinburgh-Glasgow shuttle service.

Similar to many many other EMUs (especially the Mark 3 suburban units), the Class 442 driving cars are simple unpowered trailers- basically a Mark 3 hauled coach with a cab.

The reason the West Coast mark 3s and East Coast mark 4s went for DVTs was that BR were bascially spooked by the experience of the Polmont disaster, and imposed overly-draconian restrictions on build and design- restrictions that are clearly now considered innapropriate.

*Driving Brake Standard Open