July2012 Electrification announcememnts vs IEP

Status
Not open for further replies.

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
1,869
Location
Croydon
The following occured to me when the Midland Main Line electrification was rumored on Friday 13/07/2012. Is this merely a way of increasing the potential order book for IEPs so as to keep it viable ?. Everyone else was talking about the potential stock for the MML bi-mode 222s or some flavour of Pendolinos but then my point above dawned on me.

Now that I have had a chance to log on it is now known that, in addition to MML electrification, common sense has at last shone through and Cardiff to Swansea is to be added to the electrification of the GWML from London to Cardiff. So that might hopefully put a nail in the coffin of bi-mode IEP. The reason I feel this is that surely there must now be be enough 222s that can be converted by adding a pantograph car to them that there is no need for any other bi-modes ?.

This would rely on straight electric trains being built for the Midland Main Line which, of course is now likely even if indirectly by causing a cascade from another line (e.g. Mk4s from the ECML).

So could IEP bi-mode be dead ? - OK if needs be throw in enough converted 220s replaced by short emus for Northern WCML (either Pendolinos or IEP). If IEP bi-modes are still built is there not a danger that we will have a surplus of diesel trains (I have those pacers in my sights !).

BUT also could IEP, in its current guise, be dead ?.

Apologies I was planning to add this to the thread about MML electrification but its disappeared (under my nose probably ?).
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
I don't think the IEP will be dead, hopefully the bi-mode version will be as (as you state) Swansea gets electrified a significant volume of them will no longer be needed.

The 222s will be free as I suspect that MML - Leeds services will be gone.

Some more voyagers will also be free when Manchester - Bournemouth can be EMU operated.

If the project to add a trailer to the voyagers / 222s happens the bi-mode will no longer be needed. I still see no need to remove the 91s off the ECML, drag them north of Edinburgh (or replace the DVT on some of them with a loco they have worked like this in the past when the loco was a HST power car)
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
1,869
Location
Croydon
I also think that there will be enough HSTs that can last long enough to cover the odd services that do go beyond the wires. For example StPancras-Leeds as "Failed Unit" says. By the time those HSTs are really past it hopefully the (?) rolling programme of electrification will have seen to the ends of those routes. My view is that if a route is important enough to need bi-modes for a through service then it is also getting likely that through electrification is also justified. At least it should be obvious that as time goes by electrification is more and more feasible for lesser and lesser routes.

I can also imagine the voyagers seeing out the end of their days as bi-modes while working cross country services with receding amounts of non-electric line leaving Leeds-Sheffield, Derby-Birmingham & lastly South of Birmingham(bottom of the Lickey incline) to Bristol last to be done. Transpennine electrification is going to perhaps make Leeds-Sheffield an infill. Derby to Birmingham is a small infill of largely plain line as both ends of complex junctions are already done.

A lot of the ideas about stock usage has been said before but at least these two extra bits of electrification can now be relied upon to reshape the priorities - hopefully. Personally I think we need a more ambient coach than the current offerings that are/have replaced Mk3 coaches. I was really uplifted by a ride in Chilterns unrefurbished Mk3s a few months ago btw.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I still see no need to remove the 91s off the ECML, drag them north of Edinburgh (or replace the DVT on some of them with a loco they have worked like this in the past when the loco was a HST power car)
Oh yes I agree. The Mk4s should end up on diesel LOCOMOTIVE powered services beyond the ends of the wires from Kings Cross. Like Aberdeen/Inverness, Hull (fingers crossed on trans penning electrification), Lincoln. Thus only needing straight electrics for the rest of the ECML services. The delays due to a loco coupling apart from being a myth are in fact not important for the passengers beyond the wires. Because after all if a delay is that important then surely electrification is thus also important ?. For an aberdeen passenger the fact that the train did most of the journey quicker will more than off set even a pessimistic 10 minute pause for a loco change at Edinburgh.
 
Last edited:

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
3,473
Unfortunatly, a link to Leeds/Doncaster from Sheffield doesn't seem to be included, or the MML direct route to Sheffield (avoiding Derby), or the extensions of Corby and Nottingham services. While that is to be expected, due to the low frequencies, it means some diesel stock will need to stay behind. Given that the IC125s have issues with 2020 (accessibility requirements), it is likely that EMT will keep at least 10 Meridians for those services, meaning those Meridans sadly won't be available elsewhere for getting rid of the requirement for bi-mode IEPs. Also, the ommision of Hull and Cheltenham would cause issues, and no Crewe - Chester wires means ICWC will probably be keeping its 221s.

Also, is that the Thames Valley branches I see in blue on the HLOS electrification map, more guage-incompatable 16x units to be released there... I also see Reading - Basingstoke on there, third rail or OHLE? The yellow line on the map actually extends all the way to Southampton, could they be thinking of OHLE all the way?
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Unfortunatly, a link to Leeds/Doncaster from Sheffield doesn't seem to be included, or the MML direct route to Sheffield (avoiding Derby), or the extensions of Corby and Nottingham services. While that is to be expected, due to the low frequencies, it means some diesel stock will need to stay behind.
I imagine the 222s will be converted to bi-mode and new electric stock (an add-on to a Pendolino or IEP order) will replace the HSTs.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
3,473
Oh yes I agree. The Mk4s should end up on diesel LOCOMOTIVE powered services beyond the ends of the wires from Kings Cross. Like Aberdeen/Inverness, Hull (fingers crossed on trans penning electrification), Lincoln. Thus only needing straight electrics for the rest of the ECML services.
My latest opinion on the ECML is electric-only IEP on London - Leeds/Hull/Harrogate/Lincon trains, with a diesel loco attaching for the off-wire extensions. The Scotish services (and perhaps fast services to Leeds/York) would be IC225s, with the class 91 being exchanged for a diesel loco when the wires run out on the way to Aberdeen and Inverness.

If IEP has 26m coaches, then life-extended mark3s and new electric locos will be needed on Great Western for places IEP can't fit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I imagine the 222s will be converted to bi-mode and new electric stock (an add-on to a Pendolino or IEP order) will replace the HSTs.
Yeah, I would hope the 222s get bi-mode-ified.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
1,869
Location
Croydon
Rhydgaled - yes you are reminding me. In the news item today, perhaps the speach, it was mentioned that one way car drivers gain is by a reduction in road freight so perhaps Reading-Basingstoke will get electrified as part of a Southampton Northwards freight route - tough are the wires going beyond Oxford to Birmingham ?. I wonder if freight would help justify the route past Toton ?.

As for Nottingham - are you saying the branch to Nottingham is not being electrified ? !.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,548
Location
Macclesfield
Also, is that the Thames Valley branches I see in blue on the HLOS electrification map, more guage-incompatable 16x units to be released there... I also see Reading - Basingstoke on there, third rail or OHLE? The yellow line on the map actually extends all the way to Southampton, could they be thinking of OHLE all the way?
If you read through some of the other myriad different threads covering individual aspects of the High Level Output Statement, or even read the HLOS itself, then you will find that it is 25Kv ac overhead electrification proposed between Reading and Basingstoke (This would tie in with a possible extension of additional outer-suburban Paddington – Reading services to Basingstoke), and also from Basingstoke to Southampton Docks: No doubt resulting in the South West Main Line becoming the first third rail corridor to be converted from third rail to OHLE in the LSE area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Rhydgaled - yes you are reminding me. In the news item today, perhaps the speach, it was mentioned that one way car drivers gain is by a reduction in road freight so perhaps Reading-Basingstoke will get electrified as part of a Southampton Northwards freight route - tough are the wires going beyond Oxford to Birmingham ?
The Electric Spine proposals would see electrification extended north from Oxford to Banbury, Leamington Spa, Coventry (Tying into the WCML) and then on to Nuneaton.
As for Nottingham - are you saying the branch to Nottingham is not being electrified ? !.
St Pancras – Nottingham will be getting electrified as part of the MML scheme. Rhydgaled was referring to extensions of Nottingham trains to destinations beyond there, such as Lincoln.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,726
The extension of electrification to Swansea doesn't really do any damage to bi-mode IEP, it only reduces the requirement by five, maybe six units tops. If DfT want to keep the IEP bi-mode fleet alive they could just get Plymouth-Newton Abbot cleared for 26m carriages and then convert all the Plymouth terminators to IEPs, which adds roughly the same number of sets of the same length as the Swansea electrification removes from the bi-mode order.

Any thought otherwise is just wishful thinking.

At this point I am of the opinion they should electrify all routes designated for the IEP and run derivatives of those 26m carriage non tilt Pendolinos recently ordered from Alstom by PKP Intercity. (So similar to the Mark 5 body profile)
Continuous production line for GWML, ECML and MML with a follow up for Penzance trains as required.

This would save lots of money even when you consider the capital cost of electrification, and before you consider the fuel cost savings because electricity is cheaper per kWh than red diesel.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
The extension of electrification to Swansea doesn't really do any damage to bi-mode IEP, it only reduces the requirement by five, maybe six units tops. If DfT want to keep the IEP bi-mode fleet alive they could just get Plymouth-Newton Abbot cleared for 26m carriages and then convert all the Plymouth terminators to IEPs, which adds roughly the same number of sets of the same length as the Swansea electrification removes from the bi-mode order.

Any thought otherwise is just wishful thinking.
Why, killing the dead duck is simple, cheap and really should happen ASAP!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,726
Why, killing the dead duck is simple, cheap and really should happen ASAP!
At this point the electric IEP is the dead duck, 5.8% lower leasing costs and only 1.3% less energy intensive under electric power than the bi-mode.
There seems very little point in ordering any electric IEPs at all since it imposes all sorts of operational restrictions.

But my opinion is that it should all be wired up, its still cheaper even if you have to buy a second HOOP train.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
At this point the electric IEP is the dead duck, 5.8% lower leasing costs and only 1.3% less energy intensive under electric power than the bi-mode.
There seems very little point in ordering any electric IEPs at all since it imposes all sorts of operational restrictions.

But my opinion is that it should all be wired up, its still cheaper even if you have to buy a second HOOP train.
Well if that is the case then hopefully IEP will go as well! Just use the the 22x with a pantograph trailer, drag or in some cases kill off the route!
 

gwr4090

Member
Joined
9 Nov 2011
Messages
144
At this point the electric IEP is the dead duck, 5.8% lower leasing costs and only 1.3% less energy intensive under electric power than the bi-mode.
There seems very little point in ordering any electric IEPs at all since it imposes all sorts of operational restrictions.

But my opinion is that it should all be wired up, its still cheaper even if you have to buy a second HOOP train.
You may or may not be correct, but it is noticeable that the HLOS statement makes very little reference to IEP. Are we expecting a separate statement now that the DfT agreement with Agility Trains has apparently been finalised ?

I am told that bidders for the GW franchise can offer other units/traction package options as an alternative to electric/bi-mode IEPs. But even with the Swansea electrifcation, there are still substantial requirements for dual mode trains for (a) the hourly Worcester, (b) hourly Cheltenham, (c) hourly Westbury/Exeter semi-fasts, (d) the occasional Weston/Taunton trains via Bristol and (e) the daily service to Carmarthen. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I don't think IEP is dead by any means.

David
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
You may or may not be correct, but it is noticeable that the HLOS statement makes very little reference to IEP. Are we expecting a separate statement now that the DfT agreement with Agility Trains has apparently been finalised ?

I am told that bidders for the GW franchise can offer other units/traction package options as an alternative to electric/bi-mode IEPs. But even with the Swansea electrifcation, there are still substantial requirements for dual mode trains for (a) the hourly Worcester, (b) hourly Cheltenham, (c) hourly Westbury/Exeter semi-fasts, (d) the occasional Weston/Taunton trains via Bristol and (e) the daily service to Carmarthen. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I don't think IEP is dead by any means.

David
I hope it is and we can find a way of using other units for these services (or remove them altogehter). The electrification for example will release of 221s from the Southampton - Manchester route, along with the Birmingham - Scotland routes which should be EMU anyway.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,726
You may or may not be correct, but it is noticeable that the HLOS statement makes very little reference to IEP. Are we expecting a separate statement now that the DfT agreement with Agility Trains has apparently been finalised ?
That is my understanding, we should receive a separate announcement.

I am told that bidders for the GW franchise can offer other units/traction package options as an alternative to electric/bi-mode IEPs. But even with the Swansea electrifcation, there are still substantial requirements for dual mode trains for (a) the hourly Worcester, (b) hourly Cheltenham, (c) hourly Westbury/Exeter semi-fasts, (d) the occasional Weston/Taunton trains via Bristol and (e) the daily service to Carmarthen. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I don't think IEP is dead by any means.

David
Indeed, I make it 422 dual track miles to completely cover all the IEP designated services on the Great Western and also provide through electrics all the way to Plymouth (it would seem stupid not to). (This however does not assume electrification to Swansea so I will recalc with that in mind).

Using figures from a DeltaRail report on branch line electrification I make main line standard electrification with booster transformer return provision roughly £1m per double track mile after adjusting for 2010-2012 inflation. However I think this assumes relatively lightweight electrification with single track cantilevers and headspans for wider sections.

So for roughly £450m capital cost you can eliminate IEP on the great western and replace five additional HSTs with an £850m capital order for 50 7-car non-tilt 26m carriage Pendolinos that come with 17 years maintenance. (I assume you could disproportionate the order as required by the franchise)

I crunched the numbers, you end up saving over £70m a year versus the current proposed IEP option, but it requires direct use of public funds.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
3,473
So for roughly £450m capital cost you can eliminate IEP on the great western and replace five additional HSTs with an £850m capital order for 50 7-car non-tilt 26m carriage Pendolinos that come with 17 years maintenance. (I assume you could disproportionate the order as required by the franchise)
Use coaches of the correct length (the length of mark3s, with the same width as mark3s) and you'd need more coaches, but you'd save hundreds of millions in guage clearance and not restrict the trains to specially cleared routes.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,726
Use coaches of the correct length (the length of mark3s, with the same width as mark3s) and you'd need more coaches, but you'd save hundreds of millions in guage clearance and not restrict the trains to specially cleared routes.
There are several reasons to use 26m carriages if they are possible, a train of the same length but formed of the longer carriages will have more capacity due to having less space wasted on doors and vestibules and the like.

It will also be lighter per passenger carried due to having fewer bogies.
It will have lower maintenance due to fewer traction motors, brake assemblies and wheelsets to look after.

This is the same problem that led to the shift from 20m to 23m with the Mark 3.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
2,621
Thankfully MML electrification is far enough away that its not fundamental to the viability of IEP, unlike its use on the GWML and ECML.

Therefore all the talk of allowing franchisees to have more say about rolling stock should allow them to look at alternatives for the MML - potentially setting up a fight between Hitachi, Alstom and others for the next generation of long distance 125+mph EMU's free of DfT interference in their design.

Chris
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,548
Location
Macclesfield
Thankfully MML electrification is far enough away that its not fundamental to the viability of IEP, unlike its use on the GWML and ECML.

Therefore all the talk of allowing franchisees to have more say about rolling stock should allow them to look at alternatives for the MML - potentially setting up a fight between Hitachi, Alstom and others for the next generation of long distance 125+mph EMU's free of DfT interference in their design.

Chris
If MML electrification is to be undertaken during the CP5 period as the HLOS states, then it will be to exactly the same timescale as IEP delivery for the GWML and ECML: The first IEP sets for the GWML are currently projected to begin arriving in the first half of 2017, with the final ECML sets (The ECML build will follow on directly from the GWML build in 2018) available for deployment from the start of the May 2019 timetable.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
1,869
Location
Croydon
The extension of electrification to Swansea doesn't really do any damage to bi-mode IEP, it only reduces the requirement by five, maybe six units tops.

Any thought otherwise is just wishful thinking.
Probably is 6 units but then most of the bi-modes are destined to spend a lot of time on complete journeys under the wires - its just that one bit of their daily/weekly diagram takes them beyond !. So I hope that by gettiing rid of the more important bi-mode routes/excuses then for the remaining few the excuse for too many bi-modes collapses. There seems to be an obsession with too clever diagramming resulting in having too flexible a vehicle/train specification. At the moment Cheltenham for example could be the preserve of 180s so why not 22Xs with pantograph cars.

Probably is wishful thinking.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And, as I type, along comes more fuel for my wishful thinking

Greening did just seem to confirm the Swansea electrification would alter the balance of types of IEP ordered.
An extra question. How many DIESEL ONLY 220s, 221s & 222s can be displaced by electrification onto lesser routes before we run out of uses for them (pacers beware !) ?. So how many 22Xs might as well be converted rather than using new bi-modes. Its new white elephants versus finding a use for what we already have.
 
Last edited:

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
3,473
There are several reasons to use 26m carriages if they are possible, a train of the same length but formed of the longer carriages will have more capacity due to having less space wasted on doors and vestibules and the like.

It will also be lighter per passenger carried due to having fewer bogies.
It will have lower maintenance due to fewer traction motors, brake assemblies and wheelsets to look after.
Agreed, there are advantages, but increasing the loading guage to permit them is expensive and likely to shrink the Intercity network, and means there is less money around for electrification (hence the bi-mode IEP). On WNXX fourm there are also posters who say that, despite modifications to the loading guage being performed at huge cost to accept 26m vehicles they will still need to be narrower (and hence less comfortable) than mark3s. Also concerns have been raised over the gap between train and platform and a reduced number of doors in total increasing dwell times.

I say spend the money on electrification, not allowing for 26m vehicles.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
1,869
Location
Croydon
Agreed, there are advantages, but increasing the loading guage to permit them is expensive and likely to shrink the Intercity network, and means there is less money around for electrification (hence the bi-mode IEP). On WNXX fourm there are also posters who say that, despite modifications to the loading guage being performed at huge cost to accept 26m vehicles they will still need to be narrower (and hence less comfortable) than mark3s. Also concerns have been raised over the gap between train and platform and a reduced number of doors in total increasing dwell times.

I say spend the money on electrification, not allowing for 26m vehicles.
It seems to me to be easier to extend the existing platforms when/where needed. Then, as you say, get the electrification done.

In addition to the problems above the longer coaches start to get heaver as they have to be stiffer so as to avoid flexing too much. That is then made worse when you sling an engine and fuel tanks under the coach as well. There will be a law of diminishing returns coming into play on the subject of longer coaches.

Making a set articulated is going to save more bogie weight than making the coaches longer surely ?. There is a thread somewhere on here about the pros and cons of articulation but I still have not found it !.
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,726
Agreed, there are advantages, but increasing the loading guage to permit them is expensive and likely to shrink the Intercity network, and means there is less money around for electrification (hence the bi-mode IEP). On WNXX fourm there are also posters who say that, despite modifications to the loading guage being performed at huge cost to accept 26m vehicles they will still need to be narrower (and hence less comfortable) than mark3s. Also concerns have been raised over the gap between train and platform and a reduced number of doors in total increasing dwell times.

I say spend the money on electrification, not allowing for 26m vehicles.
The hope is that the longer term operational savings from producing 26m vehicles will free additional funding to write down additional electrification costs.
We are only talking a matter of a handful of centimetres narrower as I understand it, which means that the interior area of each carriage will still be increased significantly.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
1,869
Location
Croydon
The hope is that the longer term operational savings from producing 26m vehicles will free additional funding to write down additional electrification costs.
We are only talking a matter of a handful of centimetres narrower as I understand it, which means that the interior area of each carriage will still be increased significantly.
Prompts a thought. How long are coaches on the continent ?. The reason I ask is that they have a wider loading guage anyway so narrower coaches are less of a problem than for us in the UK. But do they use that fact and have longer coaches ?. If not then why the hell would we make our coaches even narrower than they are now, we humans are not getting any slimmer (OK scrap the buffet then <D).
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,263
There are costs against IEP infrastructure alterations in the CP4 plans, but they don't break it down into different reasons.

However there are three main aspects. 'Station alterations' (lets say platform lengths), gauging, and power supplies.

They are bigger trains, so they require platform lengthening. That would be needed whatever the individual coach length, an 10 x 26m IEP would be the rough equivalent of an 11 x 23m train - so if you wanted the capacity of that 260m train you'd still need to lengthen platforms - just like they had to do for WCML Pendolino lenthening to 253m.

Power supply reinforcement on the ECML for IEP isn't proportional to individual coach length, so that aspect of the overall IEP infrastructure costs is irrelevant to the argument too.

It seems to me that those two requirements will both be far more expensive than gauging alterations. Unless you have some real figures stating as a matter of fact that it will cost 100s of £millions it is meaningless exaggeration.
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,726
Prompts a thought. How long are coaches on the continent ?. The reason I ask is that they have a wider loading guage anyway so narrower coaches are less of a problem than for us in the UK. But do they use that fact and have longer coaches ?. If not then why the hell would we make our coaches even narrower than they are now, we humans are not getting any slimmer (OK scrap the buffet then <D).
Mostly 26m as far as I can tell.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
My latest opinion on the ECML is electric-only IEP on London - Leeds/Hull/Harrogate/Lincon trains, with a diesel loco attaching for the off-wire extensions. The Scotish services (and perhaps fast services to Leeds/York) would be IC225s, with the class 91 being exchanged for a diesel loco when the wires run out on the way to Aberdeen and Inverness.
That would get my vote any day, but is unlikely because of the problems that someone always brings up of the length of time for a locomotive exchange (despite the fact that the LNER could do it in >10 mins with screw couplings and vacuum brakes).

Yeah, I would hope the 222s get bi-mode-ified.
That's actually a good question. Assuming that 222s do receive ED conversions, how long would they stay on the Midland? I'm presuming that there will be at least one route to Leeds wired, for freight as much as anything. If this happens, apart from odd services like Burton-on-Trent (assuming that reappears one day) then almost all MML routes will be electric. At that point, either something new could come in, or the 222s could lose their engines entirely.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Mostly 26m as far as I can tell.
The double-deck ones were noticeably shorter, but I couldn't tell the exact length. It might just be an optical illusion because of the greater height, please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top