Is Lockerbie-Haymarket electrified?

[TheWalrus]

If so Virgin could order a batch of Pendos to operate Birmingham-Scotland, electrify Crewe-Chester then use them for that too. Then TPEx could use Pendos (or something similar and EMU) for Man Airport-Scotland. Releasing a batch of Diesel 185s and 221s. What do you think?

 

[yorkie]

Yes, Lockerbie to Carstairs is on the WCML, and I believe Carstairs to Edinburgh was electrified at the time of ECML electrification in the late 1980s / early 1990s.

The Birmingham-Scotland line is quite famous for being a route where inadequate short-formed diesel trains run completely under the wires. For years this service was operated by efficient Class 86s and Mk2/Mk3 coaches. Now we damage the environment in order to save 5 minutes and make people stand by using inefficient Voyager trains.

It would not happen anywhere else in the world.

 

[me123]

If so Virgin could order a batch of Pendos to operate Birmingham-Scotland, electrify Crewe-Chester then use them for that too. Then TPEx could use Pendos (or something similar and EMU) for Man Airport-Scotland. Releasing a batch of Diesel 185s and 221s. What do you think?

As Yorkie's said, that would be the obvious solution. What's actually happened is a slight cock-up when the franchises were redrawn a couple of years back. No more XC via WCML means that the diesel units are redundant outwith

I think if they could order shorter Pendolinos for the route (5 or 6 cars long) it would have been good. There was the opportunity when they were ordering the additional Pendolino carriages, due into service in a few years time. The existing Voyagers could move to CrossCountry and reduce overcrowding on one of the most crazy routes in the country.

This is probably far too sensible, however, and will never happen.

 

[TheWalrus]

As Yorkie's said, that would be the obvious solution. What's actually happened is a slight cock-up when the franchises were redrawn a couple of years back. No more XC via WCML means that the diesel units are redundant outwith

I think if they could order shorter Pendolinos for the route (5 or 6 cars long) it would have been good. There was the opportunity when they were ordering the additional Pendolino carriages, due into service in a few years time. The existing Voyagers could move to CrossCountry and reduce overcrowding on one of the most crazy routes in the country.

This is probably far too sensible, however, and will never happen.

Everyone seems to think it's a good idea I saw a MAN-EDB TPEX 2x185 at Preston, and it was packed, so a Pendo wudnt hurt or maybe a 2x5-car SuperExpress, splitting at Lockerbie for both Virgin and TPEX.

I don't see how electrifying Crewe-Chester is much of a hardship :L

 

[paul1609]

Yes, Lockerbie to Carstairs is on the WCML, and I believe Carstairs to Edinburgh was electrified at the time of ECML electrification in the late 1980s / early 1990s.

The Birmingham-Scotland line is quite famous for being a route where inadequate short-formed diesel trains run completely under the wires. For years this service was operated by efficient Class 86s and Mk2/Mk3 coaches. Now we damage the environment in order to save 5 minutes and make people stand by using inefficient Voyager trains.

It would not happen anywhere else in the world.

Are the Birmingham to Edinburgh Trains that popular that people are standing other than short distances say new street to Wolverhampton?
My experience of the Glasgow to Birmingham service north of Crewe is that loadings of over 50% would be unusual, certainly North of Preston 10 to 25% would be the norm. Given those loadings the 5 car voyager is probably more energy efficient overall than a 1960s loco hauling low capacity mk 2 or 3 coaches.

 

[yorkie]

I can't speak from personal experience about loadings but can only go from what I've read/heard.

As for efficiency, a "low capacity" Mk3 standard coach has 72 seats (originally 80 seats; 8 seats removed for luggage space), however the highest capacity Voyager coach has only 62 seats.

There are plenty of Class 90s in store, but the efficiency of a Class 86 that you are referring to is still far greater than that of a Voyager. A study a few years ago indicated that Voyagers are so inefficient that a car full of 4 people is more efficient and they were rated the least efficient trains in the country, with a Class 91 & rake of Mk4s coming out as the most efficient.

Voyagers weigh considerably more than a Class 86 or Class 90 and a rake of Mk2 or Mk3s, diesel engines are also less efficient. The only way Voyagers accelerate as fast as an electric train is because they have a similar power to weight ratio. And with their weight being excessive, that means the fuel used is also excessive.

Here is an interesting comparison which demonstrates that Pendolinos, which are vastly more efficient than Voyagers, are in fact not very efficient compared to loco hauled trains:

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/square/ca14/ALYCIDON%20RAIL/INFORMED%20SOURCES%20ARCHIVE/INF%20SRCS%202004/Informed%20Sources%2006%202004%20p3.htm

Voyagers get a mention at the bottom of the article:

So where is the state of the art? Consider a four car Class 221 Voyager. Because it runs at over 100mile/h, HMRI rules bar passengers from the front third of the two driving vehicles. There are also seat-free crumple zones at the intermediate vehicle ends.

Then, some genius at Virgin thought three Classes were necessary. Thus, under the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations the Voyager has three disabled toilets, each of which sterilises space for eight seats.

Finally, all the vehicles are total lardbutts, which is not noticed in performance terms because of the lusty, and very efficient, 750hp Cummins engine underneath. The net result is a train which has 186 seats and weighs 227 tonnes – a massive 1220kg per seat, or 40% heavier than a 2+8 IC125 at around 850 kg/seat.
As with so many aspects of energy policy it looks as if self delusion is the order of the day

Don't forget the tilting equipment on all Class 221 units (whether switched on or not!) weights a considerable amount.

 

[johnb]

You're missing the point: Voyagers are 40% heavier *per seat* than 2+8 IC125. They're not 40% heavier *trains*. The same will be true compared to the loco+mk2 sets that used to run on XC.

Also, Roger's analysis of energy consumption came out before the Pendolinos had regenerative braking fitted, which saves c.15% of energy usage and doesn't work with LHCS.

(but yes, during the "cheap oil forever" late 1990s and early 2000s, trains became too heavy. The 185s are the worst offenders, although the 22x-es aren't far behind).

 

[yorkie]

You're missing the point: Voyagers are 40% heavier *per seat* than 2+8 IC125. They're not 40% heavier *trains*. The same will be true compared to the loco+mk2 sets that used to run on XC.

Surely the weight per seat is exactly what does matter?

An electric loco + coaches will be even lighter than a HST so that comparison is even less in favour of Voyagers.

Also, Roger's analysis of energy consumption came out before the Pendolinos had regenerative braking fitted, which saves c.15% of energy usage and doesn't work with LHCS.

Yes, but given that a Pendolino consumes around 50% more energy than a loco + coaches, reducing the consumption by 15% doesn't make up for that, and still leaves a big gap. But my point wasn't to criticise Pendolinos, it's just that a study that compared Pendolinos with other trains was useful to demonstrate my point as clearly it's going to be even less favourable for Voyagers, it also quite handily gave Voyagers a mention in the final paragraph.

(but yes, during the "cheap oil forever" late 1990s and early 2000s, trains became too heavy. The 185s are the worst offenders, although the 22x-es aren't far behind).

Indeed.

 

[johnb]

Paul1609's point was that the old trains were too long, and that the Voyagers are better suited to loading on the route (it doesn't matter how efficient your train is per seat if it only has one passenger). If that's true, then weight per train is a better proxy than weight per seat for what we really want to know, which is weight per passenger.

And a Pendo without regen consumes 27% more energy than loco + coaches, according to Roger Ford's analysis in your link (comparing 200km/h 87+mk3 with 200km/h Pendo).

 

[Geezertronic]

Does anyone know how the Pendolinos compares against the Class 395s?

 

[TheWalrus]

Are the Birmingham to Edinburgh Trains that popular that people are standing other than short distances say new street to Wolverhampton?
My experience of the Glasgow to Birmingham service north of Crewe is that loadings of over 50% would be unusual, certainly North of Preston 10 to 25% would be the norm. Given those loadings the 5 car voyager is probably more energy efficient overall than a 1960s loco hauling low capacity mk 2 or 3 coaches.

There we go then! Get a load of 90s/86s and Mk2/3s to do Birmingham-Scotland! And possibly Man-Scotland if there were enough, and it fit in with TPEx's timetable. That way they wouldn't need to order new trains. How many 86s, 90s, Mk3s and mk2s are out there and not in use?

 

[me123]

Would it fit in alongside 125mph tilting diagrams, though? Surely such a simple solution would have been thought about? Or am I assuming too much common sense? Again.

 

[driver9000]

Are the Birmingham to Edinburgh Trains that popular that people are standing other than short distances say new street to Wolverhampton?
My experience of the Glasgow to Birmingham service north of Crewe is that loadings of over 50% would be unusual, certainly North of Preston 10 to 25% would be the norm. Given those loadings the 5 car voyager is probably more energy efficient overall than a 1960s loco hauling low capacity mk 2 or 3 coaches.

My experience of Voyagers north of Preston is 85-95% loadings are the norm and are far more crowded than the old loco hauled trains ever were. Standing room only is seen regularly too on Voyager worked services to/from Scotland with a lot of these passengers travelling a considerable distance, I have stood all the way to Edinburgh before and that was before the 185s took over, which has made the problem even worse and is mostly the reason I drive to Edinburgh now.

 

[TheWalrus]

Would it fit in alongside 125mph tilting diagrams, though? Surely such a simple solution would have been thought about? Or am I assuming too much common sense? Again.

I guess it could be done. If the timings would be the same as a 221, then it would be ok. Virgin already have a 90+Mk3s+DVT in operation between Euston-Preston. And no such a simple solution wouldn't have been thought about haha !

 

[johnb]

221s are 125mph tilting units (all the Virgin 221s have tilt installed and are timetabled as such). 90+mk3 are limited to 110mph on all track, have much poorer acceleration, and obviously don't have tilt installed.

So no, existing loco-hauled stock wouldn't be able to meet the timetable requirements; that's why, when the WC franchise took over Birmingham-Scotland services, WC was also given 221s to operate them with.

(the Pretendolino set does London-Birmingham rather than longer-distance services, precisely because it can't keep up with the timetable. It loses time on London-Birmingham as well, but just about enough to fall within the 10 minute margin and not hit turnaround times too much.)

 

[yorkie]

A comparison of timings between Class 185 and Class 221 operated trains:

                    Non-tilt            Tilt
Preston-Lancaster   16 mins             15 mins
Lancaster-Oxenholme 14 mins             13 mins
Oxenholme-Penrith   24 mins             23 mins
Penrith-Carlisle    14 mins             13 mins

I don't think there's any point worrying about 1 minute additional journey time between stops.

 

[Aictos]

A comparison of timings between Class 185 and Class 221 operated trains:

                    Non-tilt            Tilt
Preston-Lancaster   16 mins             15 mins
Lancaster-Oxenholme 14 mins             13 mins
Oxenholme-Penrith   24 mins             23 mins
Penrith-Carlisle    14 mins             13 mins

I don't think there's any point worrying about 1 minute additional journey time between stops.

Well seeing as the 185s are limited to 100mph and there's only a minute's difference between the 185s and the 221s, would it really matter if a few LHCS services were introduced on the most busiest of services after all it's not like there would be much difference in the timings.

And according to Rail Express, DBS are looking at sending 90s aboard to Romania, why though when they could be used here instead.

 

[royaloak]

but the 185s accelerate much quicker than a loco which would probably lose 2-3 minutes per stop as the doors are manual and passengers dont seem able to close them.