IEP Pre Series cancelled!

[ChrisCooper]

Personally I'd scrap IEP and look for an EMU option to replace the 225s when the time comes. HST replacement is more complicated. It depends really on electrification. With enough electrification, the HST could be replaced with EMUs on the GWML, and also largely on the ECML (remember many HSTs on the ECML these days operate entirely under the wires to places like Leeds). Depending on timescale, I'm sure more could be done to extend the life of the HSTs, e.g power doors on the coaches. For services that go off the wires I'd build 125mph electric locos and coaching stock ("Mk5s"), and 100mph diesels. With fully automatic couplers, changeover time should be small, gained back by removing the need to drag useless equipment around over long parts of the journey. Infill electrification would deal with those routes where short sections were off the wires. The Europeans still like their locos, and if it's good enough for them, surely it's good enough for us. The same could be used on a partially electrified GWML and, if needed, Cross Country. If the GWML electrification was to be delayed beyond the feasable life of the HSTs then I think this could be built into my solution by having a proper "HST 2". This would be a set of "Mk5" coaches sandwiched by two of the diesels, which would be upgeared for 125mph running and feature one streamlined cab (like the 91s, I'd keep a blunt cab for flexability). If electrification occured within the lifetime of the stock, additional 125mph electric locos could be built for haulage under the wires, with the diesels then used for off wire work.

There is no reason why driving trailers could not be included in the coaching stock, steamlined and blunt, the latter maybe even having gangways, preventing the need for running around and allowing easy splitting. In terms of the latter I could see the electric propelling the train to say Edinburgh with a steamlined driving trailer (I avoid DVT, as that implies a wasteful full length luggage van, wheras these would have passenger accomodation) leading, at which point it would propel onto a waiting diesel. The train would then be split with the diesel taking the front part forward, and the rear part and electric loco waiting at Edinburgh. A southbound service would then arrive, propelled by a diesel at the north end with a blunt, corridor fitted driving trailer leading, and would couple onto the waiting stock. The diesel uncouples from the back, and the electric hauls the whole lot to London.

Most of my ideas are straight out of Modern Railways. The interesting thing is, I'd thought the same thing long before reading it. Another part of my idea would be that the new "Mk5" coach design would also be used for units, just as the BR coach designs were, so there would be much commonality between the EMUs and the hauled stock, and also other units of the same design elsewhere on the network.

 

[jon0844]

Why can't you just build loads of modern Mk5 coaches, then throw on an electric or diesel loco on as needed? When you upgrade more of the network, just change those.

Build the coaches to a certain standard to cope with future upgrades (speed) and they'll last years won't they?

 

[Drsatan]

A cheaper alternative would be to buy IE's unwanted Mk3s that would be fine for Britain's railways if they were regauged, but are currently being scrapped since none of the ROSCOs want them.

 

[anthony263]

A cheaper alternative would be to buy IE's unwanted Mk3s that would be fine for Britain's railways if they were regauged, but are currently being scrapped since none of the ROSCOs want them.

I wouldnt be so sure, i have heard that at least 1 british operator has expressed an interest in the irish mark 3 coaches.

 

[mallard]

I agree about the "Mk5" idea. My version of it would be slightly different, with semi-fixed formation rakes of possibly articulated carriages with streamlined driving cabs at both ends and fleets of similarly streamlined diesel and electric 125-140mph locomotives that could be coupled at either end or even in the middle of the train if it is composed of multiple rakes.

Diesels could be dragged under the wires and electrics beyond them, any driving cab could control the train, even if it is in an unpowered locomotive.

 

[ChrisCooper]

I agree about the "Mk5" idea. My version of it would be slightly different, with semi-fixed formation rakes of possibly articulated carriages with streamlined driving cabs at both ends and fleets of similarly streamlined diesel and electric 125-140mph locomotives that could be coupled at either end or even in the middle of the train if it is composed of multiple rakes.

Diesels could be dragged under the wires and electrics beyond them, any driving cab could control the train, even if it is in an unpowered locomotive.

I don't get the last sentance. Surely the idea of having loco haulage is so that diesels arn't being dragged under the wires and electrics dragged beyond them? A dead loco is another 80 or 90tonnes, that's almost 3 coaches, yet it's doing nothing at all. Especially on the diesel side, pushing or pulling a dead electric around is a big problem. It's more weight, so lower performance, more fuel use, more emissions. It's also poor use of resources, as the loco can't be hauling another train, so you need more of them. Do you really want that expensive diesel to be having a 9 hour outing to Kings Cross acting as nothing more than a glorified and overweight Driving Trailer, when it could be taking another train up to Inverness or Aberdeen and back?

Also, I can't see the point of 125mph or worse 140mph diesels in this setup, or even the feasability. For most purposes (continuing services beyond the wires) 100mph would be the maximum needed, as it is the maximum line speed on these routes. 125mph running would need higher gear ratios which would reduce performance on these lower speed routes, unless additional power was provided, along with the power needed to reach 125mph. If loco haulage was to be used on an unelectrified GWML, then I can really see performance being a bigger problem. HSTs are 4500hp from two locos. Try finding a 4500hp engine that is small enough to fit British loading gauge, light enough that it won't push the locos RA through the roof, yet still reliable and fuel efficient (imagine the latter keeps gas turbines out, which is a shame really), and that's if the overall set weight is no more than a HST. I think distributed power is the only way forward for 125mph diesels, which would include HST style top and tail (as my suggestion), allowing two lighter, lower powered locos instead of one high powered heavy one.

 

[starrymarkb]

I think he means unpowered trailer.

I'd say 110mph for any diesel locomotive, there are a few long sections which don't demand wiring but allow HSTs to do 110

 

[mallard]

I don't get the last sentance. Surely the idea of having loco haulage is so that diesels arn't being dragged under the wires and electrics dragged beyond them? A dead loco is another 80 or 90tonnes, that's almost 3 coaches, yet it's doing nothing at all. Especially on the diesel side, pushing or pulling a dead electric around is a big problem. It's more weight, so lower performance, more fuel use, more emissions. It's also poor use of resources, as the loco can't be hauling another train, so you need more of them. Do you really want that expensive diesel to be having a 9 hour outing to Kings Cross acting as nothing more than a glorified and overweight Driving Trailer, when it could be taking another train up to Inverness or Aberdeen and back?

Also, I can't see the point of 125mph or worse 140mph diesels in this setup, or even the feasability. For most purposes (continuing services beyond the wires) 100mph would be the maximum needed, as it is the maximum line speed on these routes. 125mph running would need higher gear ratios which would reduce performance on these lower speed routes, unless additional power was provided, along with the power needed to reach 125mph. If loco haulage was to be used on an unelectrified GWML, then I can really see performance being a bigger problem. HSTs are 4500hp from two locos. Try finding a 4500hp engine that is small enough to fit British loading gauge, light enough that it won't push the locos RA through the roof, yet still reliable and fuel efficient (imagine the latter keeps gas turbines out, which is a shame really), and that's if the overall set weight is no more than a HST. I think distributed power is the only way forward for 125mph diesels, which would include HST style top and tail (as my suggestion), allowing two lighter, lower powered locos instead of one high powered heavy one.

I imagine it being the norm to change locomotives at the electrification boundary, but the possibility to drag locomotives would be there for unusual routes, diversions, etc.

A few regular routes may benefit, e.g. On the CrossCountry route, a train may be composed of a rake of carriages and a diesel locomotive, but an electric could be added for the section north of York. It may be operationally simpler than detaching the diesel.

As for locomotive speed/power, I'm imagining a system with little electrification beyond what we have now, plus maybe the GWML, so some 125mph diesel running would be required, especially if some non-electrified lines are upgraded, e.g. Devon and Cornwall, MML, Trans-Pennine?

Also, if a 4000hp diesel could be built in 1967 (HS4000), surely something more powerful could be squeezed into our loading gauge these days? If not diesel, maybe gas-turbine-electric or something?

 

[ChrisCooper]

HS4000 was overweight though, and like the 67s, was seriously restricted where it could run at 125mph. Gas turbines might be an option, but I'm not sure on fuel efficiency, especially at the size required (gas turbines tend to get more efficient the bigger and more powerful they are).

I still think distributed power would be need for a none electrified GWML. If money and fuel was no object then I'd be the first to want to build a fleet of high powered gas turbine locos, but I just can't see it feasable from the point of view of fuel efficiency, emissions and noise. Reliability is a problem too, gas turbines like to be set at a nice power level and left, railways engines are idle-full power-idle-full power all the time. It's been the same problem for high powered diesels (including the Valenta) aswell.

Upgrading other routes to 125mph without electrification is false economy. This is especially true for the likes of Devon and Cornwall, Trans Pennine and the MML where gradients are a problem. It's one thing upgrading the line to 125mph, but you need the power to reach that speed. Without tilt it's also unlikely that any serious 125mph running would be possible on any of those routes, and tilt just adds weight (Super Voyagers are 10t per car heavier than Voyagers due to the tilt equipment). If you're spending the money for major realignments etc, you might as well stick wires up whilst you're at it.

Remember too, 125 is a nice number, but unless sustained running is possible, it really doesn't give that much of an improvement to journey times over 100mph. You need about 8 miles at 125mph to save a minute, and you need to take into account the time to accelerate to and brake from 125mph (a HST can take about 5mins to get from 100mph to 125mph).