IEP Annoucement

[Zoe]

Do the 225s really need replacing? They are only just over 20 years old.

 

[sprinterguy]

Do the 225s really need replacing? They are only just over 20 years old.

Removing the 225s from the ECML at about 25 years old to give the ECML a single, squadron fleet of forty ten carriage IEP electric trains gives more economies of scale in my eyes than replacing the HSTs now (Well, in five years technically) with IEP trains and the 225s with something completely different in 15-20 years. A fleet of thirty 225s would be very welcome on an electrified MML, or as Rhydgaled so enthusiastically advocates, on the GWML. It’s all pie-in-the-sky trains of thought, but IMO there’s quite a lot of options that make more sense from an operational point of view than the actual IEP and electrification proposals.

 

[Zoe]

225s on the GWML wouldn't have the acceleration that you'd get from an EMU though. Many of the GWML services stop frequently and so you'd want good acceleration.

 

[RichW1]

What's stopping the Great Eastern upgrading the Ipswich to Norwich section (or Netwrok rail sorry) to 125mph as it's very straight and there's not much traffic the other side of Stowmarket and then putting the 225's there whilst giving a whole new fleet to the ECML as the ECML does look a little like a dogs breakfast of rolling stock at the moment. uniform fleet would be great from a modernity point of view and the 225's have life left but do look a little dated all of a sudden at either end even if the coaches in-between don't.

I know it won't happen but I think they'd be perfect for Great Eastern for many years to come.

 

[Rhydgaled]

225s on the GWML wouldn't have the acceleration that you'd get from an EMU though. Many of the GWML services stop frequently and so you'd want good acceleration.

What's stopping the Great Eastern upgrading the Ipswich to Norwich section (or Netwrok rail sorry) to 125mph as it's very straight and there's not much traffic the other side of Stowmarket and then putting the 225's there whilst giving a whole new fleet to the ECML as the ECML does look a little like a dogs breakfast of rolling stock at the moment. uniform fleet would be great from a modernity point of view and the 225's have life left but do look a little dated all of a sudden at either end even if the coaches in-between don't.

I know it won't happen but I think they'd be perfect for Great Eastern for many years to come.

I enthusiastically advocate IC225s on the GWML because of the 26m coach issue, otherwise I'd probablly leave them on the ECML if I could find another way of avoiding bi-modes because as Zoe says acceleration would be helpful on GWML. If there's nothing blocking 26m coaches getting to Swansea I'd have suggested extending the PAD - CDF trains to Swansea and having 1tph calling at all the places they do currently, including Didcot, operated by IEPs and having the other tph call only at Reading, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff and Swansea operated by IC225 (still the best way I can see of serving Pembroke Dock and Carmarthen). If you can't get IEP to Swansea without spending £s, I guess it will have to stay 1tph to Swansea with 225s, perhaps dropping Swindon and Didcot (which would still be served by the Cardiff IEPs).

Giving the ECML franchisea single, squadron fleet of IEP electrics is an additional benifit of my plan, and I had thought of shifting anything that can't be a dragged IEP to Grand Central and Hull Trains before.

 

[ainsworth74]

If there's nothing blocking 26m coaches getting to Swansea

Well seeing as the current plan has Bi-mode IEP's running services to Swansea I'd suggest there is no problem or if there is, it can be rectified quite easily.

 

[NXEA!]

I would agree to 91's and Mark 4's on the GEML but I wouldn't think they are suitable as 90's. Acceleration is very important on the Norwich runs as the xx:30 off Liverpool Street has seven stops at Stratford, Chelmsford, Colchester, Manningtree, Ipswich, Stowmarket and Diss. The xx:00 off Liverpool Street would be better suited to 91 operation as the first stop is Colchester, then Manningtree, Ipswich and Diss but it wouldn't make operational sense to have two small fleets of loco's operating the GEML, and getting the loco's onto the right services everyday would be a pain in the arse. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure a 90 out-accelerates a 91, but of course the 91 has a higher top speed. On the GEML there is no 110-125 sections for the 91's to stretch their legs so to speak, and even if you did upgrade the GEML fast's between Liverpool Street and Shenfield and the line up to Norwich to 125, I'm not sure it would be of much use until Ipswich because of the sheer amount of trains per hour which stop at most stations after Shenfield plus freight and the Southend services from Shenfield into London. Its already quite congested and frequently the 90's don't really get to move as fast as they can anyway. For instance between Shenfield and Liverpool Street, on the fasts there are 7tph per hour in each direction plus the two Norwich services an hour and god-knows how many freight an hour. Add in the fact the EMU's are only 100mph capable and stop at Shenfield and some at Romford too, the 125mph 91's would just catch up the EMU ahead and tail it all the way. So on that basis I would say the 91's and Mark 4's need to go to somewhere like the GWML where they would be more suitable. Although I like the sound of the Mark 4's with 90's on the GEML... But then what to do with the 91's...

 

[tbtc]

What's stopping the Great Eastern upgrading the Ipswich to Norwich section (or Netwrok rail sorry) to 125mph as it's very straight and there's not much traffic the other side of Stowmarket and then putting the 225's there

One issue may be platform capacity at Liverpool Street. I thought one reason EMUs were suggested was because the 90+DVT arrangement takes up around two coaches of platform space and there wasn't enough room for longer trains otherwise (hence the suggestion of putting a "buffet" into the DVTs)

 

[Rhydgaled]

I like the sound of the Mark 4's with 90's on the GEML... But then what to do with the 91's...

That's not a bad idea actually, provided you can build a new fleet of mark 5 coaches (with seated DVTs) to run behind the 91s on GWML you might be onto a winner. Seeing as 87s have the same 110mph top speed as 90s, yet are slab-ended, you could perhaps convert the mrk4 TSO(E) cars into DBSOs, to save on the length and weight of the DVT.

Well seeing as the current plan has Bi-mode IEP's running services to Swansea I'd suggest there is no problem or if there is, it can be rectified quite easily.

Any problems between Cardiff and Swansea, Bristol and Weston and Swindon and Severn Tunnel Junction (via Cheltenham Spa) can probablly be fairly easily rectified as you say. Whether these can be done cheaply is another matter entirely, and Pembroke Dock's right out for the simple reason if they really would have to widen a tunnel it definiatly cannot be done cheaply. My point is, if you restrict the lines mentioned to 23m mrk4s you might save enough to put the wires up, it would at least go some way towards paying the bill. Personally I think WAG should cough up for wiring the ValleyLines and Cardiff - Swansea on the condition that Westminster pays for the Severn Tunnel diversionary route, the savings from not having to reconfigure any platforms that might be in the way could cover at least part of the diversionary route.

 

[Class172]

That's not a bad idea actually, provided you can build a new fleet of mark 5 coaches (with seated DVTs) to run behind the 91s on GWML you might be onto a winner. Seeing as 87s have the same 110mph top speed as 90s, yet are slab-ended, you could perhaps convert the mrk4 TSO(E) cars into DBSOs, to save on the length and weight of the DVT.

I like the sound of that. After all I think mk5 coaches were going to be 26m

 

[Rhydgaled]

That's not a bad idea actually, provided you can build a new fleet of mark 5 coaches (with seated DVTs) to run behind the 91s on GWML you might be onto a winner. Seeing as 87s have the same 110mph top speed as 90s, yet are slab-ended, you could perhaps convert the mrk4 TSO(E) cars into DBSOs, to save on the length and weight of the DVT.

I like the sound of that. After all I think mk5 coaches were going to be 26m

My mark 5s would be 23m, they would have to be otherwise you still can't go to Pembroke Dock, so you would still have the same problem as an IEP.

I wonder, what are the plans for the sleeper services? Will the coaches on those be power-door fitted to last beyond 2020? I'm guessing they'll have to be, but when they are eventually retired the time will be ripe for new coaches (maybe as the mark 5s were to be 26m I should be calling my idea mark 6) so I hope they build some new electric push-pull Intercity trains and not just do the sleepers.

 

[Zoe]

As I have said though, due to the frequent stops on the GWML you really need an EMU for this due to the acceleration.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Acceleration really doesn't come into it until "frequent stops" is at suburban levels. HSTs and electric hauled trains will typically hit top speed faster than an EMU as whilst the initial acceleration is lower they can maintain acceleration longer. You need to be stopping every couple of miles for units to really have an advantage, not every 10 or 20miles.

A good example was on the MML where the HSTs could actually beat the Turbostars on the "frequent stop" services the Turbostars operated due to having better acceleration (top speed really didn't come into it as between Bedford and Leicester there was no >100mph running, and the short bursts elsewhere were not enought to make a major difference, especially not on a train that was taking longer to even hit 100mph).

 

[Zoe]

Acceleration really doesn't come into it until "frequent stops" is at suburban levels. HSTs and electric hauled trains will typically hit top speed faster than an EMU as whilst the initial acceleration is lower they can maintain acceleration longer.

I believe a 390 will reach 125 mph much quicker than a class 91 and mark 4 coaches will though?

 

[Rhydgaled]

As I have said though, due to the frequent stops on the GWML you really need an EMU for this due to the acceleration.

And with the extra 2 trains per hour to Bristol Temple Meads running with IEP EMUs, the Swansea runs (using Intercity 225s) could, as I have said, ommit Swindon and Didcot, meaning the stops on the 225 service would be less frequent. A 390 may be able to accerlerate faster than an IC225 but if it is possible to fit regenerative breaking to a class 91 ithe 225 would have a lower net electricity use figure, as they work out about the same in this respect as it is. Basicly, if you want faster acceleration you need to draw more power which increases your running costs. Since an IC225 is electric it probablly can accelerate faster than an IC125 anyway, IEP electric may well accelerate faster still, but the reduced calling pattern would work in the 225's favor by reducing the IEP's advantage. In my opinion the small extra time saving of an electric IEP over an IC225 on Paddington - Swansea without calling at Didcot and Swindon is not worth the extra power consumpsion, loss of Pembroke Dock services and the resulting bi-modes for Carmarthen services.

 

[WatcherZero]

Update according to Todays Railways on the talks between Hitachi and the franchises on detailed layout specification before the final contract signing has resulted in the franchises telling Hitachi that the 8 car bi-mode and electric sets should be lengthened to 9 car. Hitachi has agreed to reform the default set length it provides (since it is a contract to provide the sets for service on a daily basis not just build them) but this change needs the Dft to sign off on it.

Even if no extra carriages are built and instead used more intensivley the Dft would still have to approve higher leasing costs. So I guess the chance of the Dft approving would be pretty low?

 

[Zoe]

the 8 car bi-mode

So there are going to be 8 car bi-mode units then, the entire fleet bi-mode fleet won't be 5 car?

 

[YorkshireBear]

So there are going to be 8 car bi-mode units then, the entire fleet bi-mode fleet won't be 5 car?

i was under impression only 5 cars will be bi mode the 8 car is an electric.

 

[WatcherZero]

The magazine implied there would be 8 car bi-modes, however remember these arent fixed sets they can be chop and changed from a pool of carriages and driving vehicles.
At least thats how I remember it from when I read it in Smiths. They were proposing two 5 car sets to make 10 car Bi-modes before wernt they?

 

[sprinterguy]

At least thats how I remember it from when I read it in Smiths. They were proposing two 5 car sets to make 10 car Bi-modes before wernt they?

Yep, with all the impracticalities of double manning, lack of walk-through ability between trains and lost space due to cab ends that such an arrangement implies.

 

[Zoe]

Yep, with all the impracticalities of double manning, lack of walk-through ability between trains and lost space due to cab ends that such an arrangement implies.

However that does remove the abilty to split en-route. This was part of the dft specification.

 

[sprinterguy]

However that does remove the abilty to split en-route. This was part of the dft specification.

Yes, two five car trains do admittedly have that efficiency over one nine car train.

Whether that one benefit outweighs all the other disadvantages is another question...

 

[swt_passenger]

Update according to Todays Railways on the talks between Hitachi and the franchises on detailed layout specification before the final contract signing has resulted in the franchises telling Hitachi that the 8 car bi-mode and electric sets should be lengthened to 9 car. Hitachi has agreed to reform the default set length it provides (since it is a contract to provide the sets for service on a daily basis not just build them) but this change needs the Dft to sign off on it.

When did you read this? I cannot find it in the July edition of TRUK I got today, or last month's - which was the one with the full page 5 & 8 car layout dawings...

As others have pointed out already no 8 car 'bi-modes' have been announced...

 

[WatcherZero]

Was in the July edition, issue after the layout drawings.