My ideas to help cope with the interim between now and a possible decarbonisation of the railway

[hwl]

I don't see any point in scrapping class 22X end cars. Yes, they're an inefficient use of space, but they've been built and they may as well be used.

There's no need for major re-engineering of class 22X; they're already pushing 20 years old and probably have 10-15 years' life left. I would transfer them all to XC, do a mid-life refurb of seating and internal decor and re-jig the train lengths within each class to give a roughly uniform fleet of 7-cars and doubled-up 4-cars. This gives a train fleet suitable for XC in the short-term. Yes, the 222s can't work in multiple with 220s and 221s but many operators already have mixed fleets with the same issue and at least there's kit in common to make some efficiencies on maintenance.

Longer term the trains will get replaced, but what with will depend on the proposed electrification sequencing and what the XC network will look like post-HS2.

Some of the XC network won't get electrified for a very long time and they use a huge amount of diesel under the wires currently (see my earlier comments on this thread) so an early win is replacement with bi-mode. It isn't just about getting there by an end date but also how much you can cut sooner too.
GWR short HST replacement when the time comes looks sensible - as they wouldn't be doing over 100mph you could probably get away with isolating one engine at time in 4 car set. Non tilts fitted Voyagers/Meridians have about 8% better fuel consumption so I can't see 221s being popular.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Sep 2020 ==

Which is where new build hybrids come in. Battery or diesel, or both.

But in any event, it is quite feasible that older diesel stock will be retiring before any electrification.

In Scotland I think things will work out quite well / efficiently but in the England there is no way to match which routes get prioritised with when rolling stock is life expired, hence lots of hybrids, more than needed for the long term will be needed in the medium term. Much existing diesel stock will get cascaded a lot - as will lots of newer hybrid stock.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I don't see any point in scrapping class 22X end cars. Yes, they're an inefficient use of space, but they've been built and they may as well be used.

There's no need for major re-engineering of class 22X; they're already pushing 20 years old and probably have 10-15 years' life left. I would transfer them all to XC, do a mid-life refurb of seating and internal decor and re-jig the train lengths within each class to give a roughly uniform fleet of 7-cars and doubled-up 4-cars. This gives a train fleet suitable for XC in the short-term. Yes, the 222s can't work in multiple with 220s and 221s but many operators already have mixed fleets with the same issue and at least there's kit in common to make some efficiencies on maintenance.

Longer term the trains will get replaced, but what with will depend on the proposed electrification sequencing and what the XC network will look like post-HS2.

The 22x (particularly the XC Voyagers) are poorly specified trains with a high fuel consumption. I think we need to find a balance between "they've been built and they may as well be used" and "they have a high fuel consumption we need to get rid of them ASAP".

The 4-car sets have insufficient capacity which will only get smaller still if you did an interior refit to decent long-distance quality standards. I think a 220 has 200 seats. A pair of 2-car 175s, with possibly the best seat pitch on the network, would seat 242 passengers (all std class of course) and have twice as many bays. Making the Voyager standard class (2+2) throughout to make the 175 comparison fairer would give 10 extra seats. A 5-car 221/222 has a similar capacity to the pair of 175s (4-car). Since not much of Cardiff-Nottingham is wired yet I think 5-car 22x with an interior refit (less first class and a much improved standard) could be a good choice there until 2030/2035, freeing up some 170s to strengthen the Stansted route or replace Sprinters elsewhere.

I suppose if you want to do less scrapping (and avoid mixing 222 and 220 vehicles if the body shape is indeed different) you could just bump off the around half the 220 driving cars and the driving cars of the four 222/1 units so that you can bring all the 220s up to at least 5 coaches and have 8 instead of 6 7-car Meridians.

Some of the XC network won't get electrified for a very long time and they use a huge amount of diesel under the wires currently (see my earlier comments on this thread) so an early win is replacement with bi-mode. It isn't just about getting there by an end date but also how much you can cut sooner too.

Indeed, there is an awful lot of under-wires running on XC but also loads of diesel mileage and some 3rd rail. Is a LDHS tri-mode at all likely or is the Bournemouth route best left with Voyagers until the gaps are wired to allow a dual-voltage EMU? So perhaps the thing to do is to get a small number of bi-modes for Cornwall/Plymouth-Scotland (where there are already wires from Doncaster/York to Glasgow and prospects of more by 2030/2035 with Scotland heading for Aberdeen and hopefully the MML between Derby and Doncaster/Leeds) and keep the Voyagers elsewhere until cascaded bi-modes are available to replace them.

Another issue I forgot about previously is the ECML power supply limitations; are TPE still using their Nova 1s in diesel mode throughout and how long until the upgrades are done to allow XC to use electric traction anyway?

In Scotland I think things will work out quite well / efficiently but in the England there is no way to match which routes get prioritised with when rolling stock is life expired, hence lots of hybrids, more than needed for the long term will be needed in the medium term. Much existing diesel stock will get cascaded a lot - as will lots of newer hybrid stock.

Even in England, there will be stock reaching end of life (eg. Voyagers around 2030-2035) but not necessarily on the routes you can get wired in time. So yes, lots of cascades; which means needing somewhere to cascade the more-modern diesels/hybrids to. If I recall correctly from earlier in this thread, the MML is one of the few 'shovel-ready' sections - but that will have fairly new 810s on it. Either you cascade them to XC when the MML is wired (which won't work if XC gets a total fleet replacement between now and then) or you have to convince the DfT that electrification of the MML is worthwhile even if it means taking the diesel engines off the 810s or continuing to pay to have said engines even though they wouldn't be needed anymore. There aren't enough 810s to replace all the Voyagers, but MML electrification by 2030 does tie up quite well with an only slightly early end of life for the Voyagers.

 

[quantinghome]

The 22x (particularly the XC Voyagers) are poorly specified trains with a high fuel consumption. I think we need to find a balance between "they've been built and they may as well be used" and "they have a high fuel consumption we need to get rid of them ASAP".

The 4-car sets have insufficient capacity which will only get smaller still if you did an interior refit to decent long-distance quality standards. I think a 220 has 200 seats. A pair of 2-car 175s, with possibly the best seat pitch on the network, would seat 242 passengers (all std class of course) and have twice as many bays. Making the Voyager standard class (2+2) throughout to make the 175 comparison fairer would give 10 extra seats. A 5-car 221/222 has a similar capacity to the pair of 175s (4-car). Since not much of Cardiff-Nottingham is wired yet I think 5-car 22x with an interior refit (less first class and a much improved standard) could be a good choice there until 2030/2035, freeing up some 170s to strengthen the Stansted route or replace Sprinters elsewhere.

I suppose if you want to do less scrapping (and avoid mixing 222 and 220 vehicles if the body shape is indeed different) you could just bump off the around half the 220 driving cars and the driving cars of the four 222/1 units so that you can bring all the 220s up to at least 5 coaches and have 8 instead of 6 7-car Meridians.

Yes, absolutely, the 220s and 221s were a disaster right from the start. Poor comfort, horribly inefficient use of space and killed off any chance of XC being a real game changer in terms of non-London journeys. I don't know if you experienced 'Operation Princess' but it was really unpleasant as a passenger. They're just about tolerable if they're not busy. But (covid aside) they pretty much always are. The 222s seem better. Lessons were evidently learned.

What I don't see the point of is wasteful scrapping of useable units when XC needs all the capacity it can get. With all the 22Xs it is disposal, XC would be able to form every service either as minimum 7-car or 2x4-car trains. This would be an interim measure. I would imagine the XC routes would be electrified following completion of Transpennine, Midland and GW - which would be half the job for XC already. It might make sense to start replacing the 22Xs with hybrids released from other intercity routes as these are made all-electric. If XC ends up lower down on the electrification list then we should think about fleet replacement with hybrids. But post-HS2 needs to be considered as well. XC will have different service requirements after that.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What I don't see the point of is wasteful scrapping of useable units when XC needs all the capacity it can get. With all the 22Xs it is disposal, XC would be able to form every service either as minimum 7-car or 2x4-car trains.

While the 7-car units could get an interior refit to sort out the comfort issues, the 4-car sets would probably lose too much capacity unless you could 'permanently' couple sets to allow the first class in one unit to be converted to standard.

This would be an interim measure. I would imagine the XC routes would be electrified following completion of Transpennine, Midland and GW - which would be half the job for XC already. It might make sense to start replacing the 22Xs with hybrids released from other intercity routes as these are made all-electric

I think I agree with all of that.

 

[jfowkes]

How suitable would 22x units be for EWR?

My gut says "not suitable at all" but I don't know why.

 

[tbtc]

If you want to improve the railway's energy emissions then, rather than some blue sky thinking about scrapping some Voyager coaches and throwing cash at making other ones compatible with Meridians (or scrapping other modern trains, or wiring up hundreds of miles of electrification), why not focus attentions on amending certain services to follow current electrification?

At the moment we have a number of services where a DMU is required but the majority of the distance is under the wires. Windermere to Manchester Airport is an obvious one, but there are others where this kind of thing goes on.

 

[The Ham]

If you want to improve the railway's energy emissions then, rather than some blue sky thinking about scrapping some Voyager coaches and throwing cash at making other ones compatible with Meridians (or scrapping other modern trains, or wiring up hundreds of miles of electrification), why not focus attentions on amending certain services to follow current electrification?

At the moment we have a number of services where a DMU is required but the majority of the distance is under the wires. Windermere to Manchester Airport is an obvious one, but there are others where this kind of thing goes on.

Indeed, the use of bimodal trains should be limited to where there's long runs off diesel use, something where there's >90% use of wires along a route should be looked at to see if a fairly short amount of electrification can cut a lot of under wire running. Even if that means some battery use, for instance to reduce costs by not needing to replace bridges. As that might only need a battery which is capable of running for (say) 5 miles and so wouldn't add much weight or take up much space.

 

[37424]

XC is the obvious 22x dumping ground for these trains they potentially have at least another 10 years before they need to be replaced by which time alternate technologies may have improved. I think the resumption of project Thor is fanciful and unlikely to be a good business case, and I suspect any possible re-engineering of the 22x fleet might be along along the lines of Battery Hybrid system to reduce fuel consumption.

Yes if you bought some AT300's for the Edinburgh/Glasgow services then that would reduce a significant chunk of under the wire running assuming Network Fail fix the Power supply issue, as potentially would a Tri Mode on Manchester Bournemouth, but unless less is an overwhelming Business case in terms of reduced costs I don't see it happening and certainly not on environmental grounds when a replacement will be due before the 2040 ban anyway, plus going forward if the franchises are going to concessions then you would expect the Dft to be going back to calling the tune on rolling stock rather than the TOC's and I carn't see them wanting to spend any money on new trains for XC at the moment.

If any body mentions Windermere-Manchester again I think I will scream, its 4 trains a day well not even that at the moment on a moderately powered 3 car DMU.

 

[Rhydgaled]

XC is the obvious 22x dumping ground for these trains they potentially have at least another 10 years before they need to be replaced by which time alternate technologies may have improved. I think the resumption of project Thor is fanciful and unlikely to be a good business case, and I suspect any possible re-engineering of the 22x fleet might be along along the lines of Battery Hybrid system to reduce fuel consumption.

Yes if you bought some AT300's for the Edinburgh/Glasgow services then that would reduce a significant chunk of under the wire running assuming Network Fail fix the Power supply issue, as potentially would a Tri Mode on Manchester Bournemouth, but unless less is an overwhelming Business case in terms of reduced costs I don't see it happening and certainly not on environmental grounds when a replacement will be due before the 2040 ban anyway

The 2040 'ban' (more a ministerial promise if I recall correctly) is "diesel-only" trains - bi-modes are exempt. Full decarbonisation will eventually require diesel engines to be banned, but I can't see full decarbonisation before 2050 being a realistic target so bi-modes are ok (in limited numbers as a transitional solution) until then.

I agree that XC is the obvious 22x operator; other potential routes are further from Central Rivers I think. So you either live with them running under the wires until bi-modes can be cascaded in to replace them or buy some new bi-modes and concentrate the 22x on XC's least-wired routes (I think the Scottish route has the most wires, but may be wrong there), again until cascaded bi-modes can replace them. Does XC have enough work for their potential LDHS fleet of 110 sets (105 22x plus 5 IC125s, which I'm guessing were intended to run until 2035 following the power door mods) or is that too big a fleet even if Cardiff-Nottingham is switched to 5-car Voyagers/Meridians?

Moving away from XC, I assume if there were wires between Manchester and York (and the ECML power supply issues were sorted) TPE would switch their 802s onto Middlesbrough/Redcar or Scarborough services and the mark 5 sets onto Liverpool-Leeds-Edinburgh services. That would allow the 68s on the mrk5s to be replaced by electric locos. I wonder if there could be an opportunity to use those passenger-spec 68s elsewhere on new coaches (which again gives potential to swap for an electric loco at some point in the future)? If you can find a suitable route, an 18 year old 68 (in 2035) is a better interim solution than building anything new with diesel engines at that time.

 

[37424]

The 2040 'ban' (more a ministerial promise if I recall correctly) is "diesel-only" trains - bi-modes are exempt. Full decarbonisation will eventually require diesel engines to be banned, but I can't see full decarbonisation before 2050 being a realistic target so bi-modes are ok (in limited numbers as a transitional solution) until then.

I agree that XC is the obvious 22x operator; other potential routes are further from Central Rivers I think. So you either live with them running under the wires until bi-modes can be cascaded in to replace them or buy some new bi-modes and concentrate the 22x on XC's least-wired routes (I think the Scottish route has the most wires, but may be wrong there), again until cascaded bi-modes can replace them. Does XC have enough work for their potential LDHS fleet of 110 sets (105 22x plus 5 IC125s, which I'm guessing were intended to run until 2035 following the power door mods) or is that too big a fleet even if Cardiff-Nottingham is switched to 5-car Voyagers/Meridians?

Moving away from XC, I assume if there were wires between Manchester and York (and the ECML power supply issues were sorted) TPE would switch their 802s onto Middlesbrough/Redcar or Scarborough services and the mark 5 sets onto Liverpool-Leeds-Edinburgh services. That would allow the 68s on the mrk5s to be replaced by electric locos. I wonder if there could be an opportunity to use those passenger-spec 68s elsewhere on new coaches (which again gives potential to swap for an electric loco at some point in the future)? If you can find a suitable route, an 18 year old 68 (in 2035) is a better interim solution than building anything new with diesel engines at that time.

How much of the 22x woulds be used by XC remains to be seen and it is of course pure speculation on here that they will be used at all.

The idea that electric loco's will replace the 68's has been discussed much, I think remains to be seen if and when electrification is completed whether that's the preferred solution, they would need find a 125mph electric loco, and the loco hauled sets have noteably less capacity than the trains they would replace and their isn't enough to replace all 802's well at least there isn't assuming the full timetable comes back at some point. At least TPE have Bi-modes although they should have got more instead of the Loco Hauled Trains, despite the optimism on here I'm not convinced that even in 10 years time there will be full wires between Manchester and York.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

they would need find a 125mph electric loco

Why ?

 

[37424]

Why ?

Why not aren't the Edinburgh/Newcastle services timed at up to 125mph on the East Coast so why replace them with something slower, in any case this situation is some time away and replacement with EMU's may be more likely, than buying a very limited fleet of electric loco's, anyway lets not turn this into another TPE tolling stock thread.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Why not aren't the Edinburgh/Newcastle services timed at up to 125mph on the East Coast so why replace them with something slower, in any case this situation is some time away and replacement with EMU's may be more likely, than buying a very limited fleet of electric loco's, anyway lets not turn this into another TPE tolling stock thread.

The Class 68 is a 100mph diesel locomotive and the Class 88 is a 100mph electric locomotive (with small diesel engine for a spot of light shunting). It's a like for like swap (albeit one with a chunk more acceleration as you move from 2.8MW to 4MW with the electric loco)

 

[37424]

The Class 68 is a 100mph diesel locomotive and the Class 88 is a 100mph electric locomotive (with small diesel engine for a spot of light shunting). It's a like for like swap (albeit one with a chunk more acceleration as you move from 2.8MW to 4MW with the electric loco)

How is it a like for like swap the suggestion was to swap 802 with the loco hauled on the Edinburgh run which would be the only route fully electrified if and when manchester- york is done. If you want to do a like for like swap then you need a bi mode loco with more diesel power than an 88, unless you wait for Scarborough/Redcar to be electrified this has been discussed so many time it's like going around a never ending loop.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

How is it a like for like swap the suggestion was to swap 802 with the loco hauled on the Edinburgh run which would be the only route fully electrified if and when manchester- york is done. If you want to do a like for like swap then you need a bi mode loco with more diesel power than an 88, unless you wait for Scarborough/Redcar to be electrified this has been discussed so many time it's like going around a never ending loop.

I obviously missed that. I assumed it was just another proposal to swap the diesel loco for an electric loco on the LHCS sets, not to both replace the diesel loco with a faster electric loco and then use the sets on the ECML.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I wonder if the program business case due out next month will shed any light on what is planned in the interim per thread title?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Why not aren't the Edinburgh/Newcastle services timed at up to 125mph on the East Coast so why replace them with something slower, in any case this situation is some time away and replacement with EMU's may be more likely, than buying a very limited fleet of electric loco's, anyway lets not turn this into another TPE tolling stock thread.

How much of the route between Edinburgh and Newcastle allows 125 mph running?

 

[Starmill]

I imagine there will be more than enough Voyager work to go around until 2030, by which point the trains will either be already going for scrap or will be eeking out their final years. Large scale new electrification isn't yet a commitment. It isn't likely to even become one in 2020.

 

[37424]

How much of the route between Edinburgh and Newcastle allows 125 mph running?

The 125mph running is relevant between York and Edinburgh as far as TPE concerned and I imagine it isn't just about a potential faster journey time I but having a similar performance to other passenger trains on the route from the point of view of taking up paths. To answer your question there are some significant sections between Newcastle and Edinburgh which are not 125mph. As I have said there isn't enough Loco Hauled Sets to swap with all the 802's and really we have no idea what a post electric timetable would be like anyway in all probability it would require more stock, at the moment we don't even know what the medium term post covid TPE will be given hardly any North TPE services running North of Newcastle at the moment and the Man Airport- Newcastle service isn't running either there must be a lot of TPE 802's not doing very much.

Anyway getting back to the point the AT300 have helped with reducing diesel under the wires substancially on the East Coast but of course replacement stock was due anyway, whether you can really justify getting rid of rolling before it is life expired purely on the grounds of decarbonisation is debatable.

On the West Coast the new AT300 fleet should reduce diesel under the wires significantly but the Voyagers are not yet life expired and I'm not sure decarbonisation was the main driver for that. If franchises change to a simpler type contract to simply operate the trains then presumably the Dft will take back control of rolling stock provision and shinny new trains to help win the franchise may stop.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The idea that electric loco's will replace the 68's has been discussed much, I think remains to be seen if and when electrification is completed whether that's the preferred solution, they would need find a 125mph electric loco, and the loco hauled sets have noteably less capacity than the trains they would replace

Fair point. In hindsight, in the event of TPE electrification, it would probably make more sense to cascade the 68s and mark 5s away from TPE together and order more 397s for TPE Liverpool-Leeds-Edinburgh services (with more carriages and, hopefully, better seats). That would have the same effect of avoiding the use of bi-modes on a fully-wired route while reducing the number of different types operated by TPE.

I wonder if the program business case due out next month will shed any light on what is planned in the interim per thread title?

I hope it will at least give illustrative timescales for each section, giving an idea of which order areas would ideally be wired.

I imagine there will be more than enough Voyager work to go around until 2030, by which point the trains will either be already going for scrap

I don't think that has been questioned. What has been debated is whether it makes sense to build bi-modes to replace the Voyagers in about 2023/24. That would waste about 5 years of the Voyagers' potential working life by scrapping them early, but would mean XC would be able to make more use of the wires that already exist today. However, this idea is complicated by the fact that some sections of OHLE would need thier power supply beefed up to handle any more trains in electric mode (TPE are already running 802s in diesel mode under the wires in places I beleive).

whether you can really justify getting rid of rolling before it is life expired purely on the grounds of decarbonisation is debatable.

exactly. There are arguments for and against, and it's not clear to me which is the right course of action.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Fair point. In hindsight, in the event of TPE electrification, it would probably make more sense to cascade the 68s and mark 5s away from TPE together and order more 397s for TPE Liverpool-Leeds-Edinburgh services (with more carriages and, hopefully, better seats). That would have the same effect of avoiding the use of bi-modes on a fully-wired route while reducing the number of different types operated by TPE.

I hope it will at least give illustrative timescales for each section, giving an idea of which order areas would ideally be wired.

I don't think that has been questioned. What has been debated is whether it makes sense to build bi-modes to replace the Voyagers in about 2023/24. That would waste about 5 years of the Voyagers' potential working life by scrapping them early, but would mean XC would be able to make more use of the wires that already exist today. However, this idea is complicated by the fact that some sections of OHLE would need thier power supply beefed up to handle any more trains in electric mode (TPE are already running 802s in diesel mode under the wires in places I beleive).

exactly. There are arguments for and against, and it's not clear to me which is the right course of action.

I'd broadly agree - Mark 5A stock goes to Chiltern, Class 802 units replace the Mark 5A stock on the Redcar and Scarborough services (which suits rolling electrification there without causing diagramming headaches) but you back fill with new Class 801 units rather than Class 397 units, and you'll need something (electric or bi-mode) to run to Hull when it's electrified too.

I also think you're being somewhat optimistic about replacing Voyagers in 2023/24 - there's bugger all chance of any electrification beyond Market Harborough being completed by then, and there's not enough electrification around Birmingham to justify bi-mode for XC just quite yet - the big changes will come when MML electrification to Sheffield is complete, there's electrification between Birmingham and Derby, and wiring that XC can use around Birmingham extends at least to Bromsgrove if not further towards Droitwich Spa and Worcester.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'd broadly agree - Mark 5A stock goes to Chiltern, Class 802 units replace the Mark 5A stock on the Redcar and Scarborough services (which suits rolling electrification there without causing diagramming headaches) but you back fill with new Class 801 units rather than Class 397 units, and you'll need something (electric or bi-mode) to run to Hull when it's electrified too.

For Hull, just get more of whatever EMU (397 or 80x - not 801 as that's not a proper EMU it still has a diesel engine) you use for Liverpool-Edinburgh. I think I'd try to move the Stalybridge stops from the Hull services into the Newcastle terminators and use something like 350s or Electrostars on the Newcastles and the Manchester-Leeds stoppers (which Wikipedia says are currently split in two at Huddersfield, not sure if that's temporary or not).

I also think you're being somewhat optimistic about replacing Voyagers in 2023/24 - there's bugger all chance of any electrification beyond Market Harborough being completed by then, and there's not enough electrification around Birmingham to justify bi-mode for XC just quite yet - the big changes will come when MML electrification to Sheffield is complete, there's electrification between Birmingham and Derby, and wiring that XC can use around Birmingham extends at least to Bromsgrove if not further towards Droitwich Spa and Worcester.

Sorry, think I've muddled something up. There are two options in my head now:

1. Give XC all 22x and keep them there until bi-modes can be drip-fed to replace them as electrification progresses (which, as you say, won't be until long after 2024)
2. Order new bi-modes for XC now (which I guess would be delivered around 2023/24) to scrap the Voyagers early - I wasn't the one to suggest this on here and I don't like the fact it leaves nowhere sensible to cascade the 800s and 810s to once GWML, MML and ECML wiring have progressed, but I have to admit that getting Voyagers out from under the wires could be helpful to decarbonisation.

 

[The Ham]

For Hull, just get more of whatever EMU (397 or 80x - not 801 as that's not a proper EMU it still has a diesel engine) you use for Liverpool-Edinburgh. I think I'd try to move the Stalybridge stops from the Hull services into the Newcastle terminators and use something like 350s or Electrostars on the Newcastles and the Manchester-Leeds stoppers (which Wikipedia says are currently split in two at Huddersfield, not sure if that's temporary or not).

Sorry, think I've muddled something up. There are two options in my head now:

1. Give XC all 22x and keep them there until bi-modes can be drip-fed to replace them as electrification progresses (which, as you say, won't be until long after 2024)
2. Order new bi-modes for XC now (which I guess would be delivered around 2023/24) to scrap the Voyagers early - I wasn't the one to suggest this on here and I don't like the fact it leaves nowhere sensible to cascade the 800s and 810s to once GWML, MML and ECML wiring have progressed, but I have to admit that getting Voyagers out from under the wires could be helpful to decarbonisation.

A 801 has a 40mph recovery engine, whilst a 800 has 100mph capability on diesel, could you not therefore shift some engines from to give a (say) 60-75mph limit to allow some lower speed lines to be connected up without the need for them to be electrified straight away, but still possibly get some extra journey time improvements when electrification happens. (May not be Hull, but it's just a thought which I've had which fits within the discussion).

With regards to XC there's power line upgrades to the ECML with contacts being awarded:

£216.2m East Coast Main Line power supply upgrade contract awarded

Britain's East Coast Main Line Power Supply Upgrade project has moved into its second phase after a £216.2m contract was awarded.

www.railjournal.com

The key bit being:

The project will upgrade the power capabilities of the line between Doncaster and Edinburgh, to optimise the line and reduce inefficiencies across the network. The upgrade to the northern section follows improvements to the southern section delivered over the last few years

With XC there's an option 3 which suits between the two, which I've suggested before.

From circa 2025 build 100 coaches of 802 type units per year and start to deploy them, so that you can slowly replace the 22x's on those routes where there's more electrification.

At the same time deliver 810 type units to the secondary XC services, WofE services and other inter-regional services (so that the capacity at Hitachi is used to deliver a lot of units, is just that the main XC services take longer to fully deploy).

That way there's likely to be 22x's getting on for 30 by the time they leave XC (reducing the impact on retiring then early) whilst reducing under the wire running.

It would also give XC to wire up more of the XC network, but only as a secondary purpose. For instance those bits around Birmingham which benefit the local services, likewise those bits which benefit the MML services, bits which benefit local services around Bristol (which may also include to Weston Super Mare) and so on.

That may leave sections of lines which only see XC services which are then put towards the back of the queue, but allows other bits of the network to get EMU's sooner than would otherwise be the case.

It could also (if there was a need for more capacity) allow the lengthening of the 5 coach 800's (but with no extra diesel engines) to create the units suggested at the beginning of this post which have a 60-70mph top speed when away from the wires.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Fit the 350/2s with a 185-like interior and use those on the Hulls and the stoppers. The Hull services don't use any of the North TPE diversionary routes during engineering works (as far as I know at least) so diesel engines wouldn't be necessary should the main route all be wired.

 

[Rhydgaled]

A 801 has a 40mph recovery engine, whilst a 800 has 100mph capability on diesel, could you not therefore shift some engines from to give a (say) 60-75mph limit to allow some lower speed lines to be connected up without the need for them to be electrified straight away, but still possibly get some extra journey time improvements when electrification happens. (May not be Hull, but it's just a thought which I've had which fits within the discussion).

Isn't the engine on an 801 the exact same engine model as fitted on 800s and 802s (with 802s and GWR's 800s having different settings to allow them to extract more power from the engines than LNER's IEP units)? Thus, it's not the choice of engine that limits an 801 to 40mph but the fact there's only one of them which means the power:weight ratio on an 801 (in diesel mode) is rubbish. I suppose you could shuffle engines around to put two engines under each 5-car unit instead of 3 under some and 1 under others, but would the resulting power:weight ratio be useful?

With regards to XC there's power line upgrades to the ECML with contacts being awarded:

£216.2m East Coast Main Line power supply upgrade contract awarded

Britain's East Coast Main Line Power Supply Upgrade project has moved into its second phase after a £216.2m contract was awarded.

www.railjournal.com

Good to see that the power supply upgrade is moving forward, but it doesn't appear to state when it will be complete or whether there will be enough spare power capacity to accomodate all TPE, XC, LNER and FirstGroup OpenAccess services. The article mentions the Intercity Express Programme so is the upgrade only designed to facilitate the enhanced timetable proposed by Virgin Trains East Coast in their franchise bid and not XC running in electricc mode too?

With XC there's an option 3 which suits between the two, which I've suggested before.

From circa 2025 build 100 coaches of 802 type units per year and start to deploy them, so that you can slowly replace the 22x's on those routes where there's more electrification.

At the same time deliver 810 type units to the secondary XC services, WofE services and other inter-regional services (so that the capacity at Hitachi is used to deliver a lot of units, is just that the main XC services take longer to fully deploy).

Isn't that just partial implementation of option 2 - ie. replace some of the Voyagers in 2023/24 whereas option 2 implied replacing all of them? Also I don't understand why you would build a mix of 802s and 810s. I would either place an immediate ban on ordering any LHDS stock that isn't pure electric (remembering that Hitachi have already sold either 186 or 199 bi-modes (excluding 801s) to the UK depending on which set of figures Wiki has for the 800s is correct) or permit one more batch of bi-modes. Said bi-modes would be of a single design (either more 802s, more 810s or a new design with plug doors based on one of those two types and fully compatible with them in all other respects) for reasons of standardisation. That final batch of LHDS bi-modes would arrive sometime between 2023 and 2025 (if it's a large batch then deliveries may run for more than a year) but even these would not be life-expired before 2050.

It would also give XC to wire up more of the XC network, but only as a secondary purpose. For instance those bits around Birmingham which benefit the local services, likewise those bits which benefit the MML services, bits which benefit local services around Bristol (which may also include to Weston Super Mare) and so on.

That may leave sections of lines which only see XC services which are then put towards the back of the queue, but allows other bits of the network to get EMU's sooner than would otherwise be the case.

That does sound like it may be a sensible approach, provided the 'XC only' bits aren't needed for freight leaving them until last may be a smart move. On the other hand, does an 810 running at 110mph twice per hour consume more fuel than 4-car 196/158 DMUs running at 75-90mph three times per hour? And if it does, is it better to focus on wiring the bits with the highest linespeed (and maximum decarbonisation) or can we base the order of wiring on what works best from a financial viewpoint (eg. planning electrification around when you are resignalling anyway)?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Isn't the engine on an 801 the exact same engine model as fitted on 800s and 802s (with 802s and GWR's 800s having different settings to allow them to extract more power from the engines than LNER's IEP units)? Thus, it's not the choice of engine that limits an 801 to 40mph but the fact there's only one of them which means the power:weight ratio on an 801 (in diesel mode) is rubbish. I suppose you could shuffle engines around to put two engines under each 5-car unit instead of 3 under some and 1 under others, but would the resulting power:weight ratio be useful?

Good to see that the power supply upgrade is moving forward, but it doesn't appear to state when it will be complete or whether there will be enough spare power capacity to accomodate all TPE, XC, LNER and FirstGroup OpenAccess services. The article mentions the Intercity Express Programme so is the upgrade only designed to facilitate the enhanced timetable proposed by Virgin Trains East Coast in their franchise bid and not XC running in electricc mode too?

Isn't that just partial implementation of option 2 - ie. replace some of the Voyagers in 2023/24 whereas option 2 implied replacing all of them? Also I don't understand why you would build a mix of 802s and 810s. I would either place an immediate ban on ordering any LHDS stock that isn't pure electric (remembering that Hitachi have already sold either 186 or 199 bi-modes (excluding 801s) to the UK depending on which set of figures Wiki has for the 800s is correct) or permit one more batch of bi-modes. Said bi-modes would be of a single design (either more 802s, more 810s or a new design with plug doors based on one of those two types and fully compatible with them in all other respects) for reasons of standardisation. That final batch of LHDS bi-modes would arrive sometime between 2023 and 2025 (if it's a large batch then deliveries may run for more than a year) but even these would not be life-expired before 2050.

That does sound like it may be a sensible approach, provided the 'XC only' bits aren't needed for freight leaving them until last may be a smart move. On the other hand, does an 810 running at 110mph twice per hour consume more fuel than 4-car 196/158 DMUs running at 75-90mph three times per hour? And if it does, is it better to focus on wiring the bits with the highest linespeed (and maximum decarbonisation) or can we base the order of wiring on what works best from a financial viewpoint (eg. planning electrification around when you are resignalling anyway)?

The one engine fitted to the Class 801 units is exactly the same engine as that fitted to the Class 800/802/805 fleets - not strictly out of necessity - a smaller engine could have been fitted, as I understand it, but Hitachi chose to keep things simple, going with a common engine and alternator package across all variants. It is only designed for hotel power and low speed shunting - the intention being it will provide sufficient traction power to allow a unit involved in a de-wirement to move itself to the next electrical section at low speed, or to provide hotel power when being dragged by a Class 800/802 unit on non-electrified routes.

The ECML PSU2 upgrade will provide enough power to allow all paths operated on the ECML to be operated by electric traction with a healthy spare capacity for future growth/train lengthening. The ECML was always tight on spare power capacity, and there were issues in getting the original electrification signed off - the reports into the electrification are on the Railways Archive site and make interesting reading. The timescales aren't strictly set by the railway here - there's some DNO/grid issues to resolve, but it's going to be 2025 before everything can be timetabled on electric north of Doncaster.

The situation with ordering more AT300 bi-mode stock is that it really is just XC who could justify another order, anything ordered after that, such as additional units for TransPennine, should be deliverable as a straight EMU (with or without that single diesel engine). The reality, of course, is that getting the core of the XC network wired is going to be a 2030 aim, rather than a 2025 aim, but even with a continuous route electrified from south of Birmingham to York via the MML, there will be significant mileage at either end of the route which won't see electrification before 2035 to 2050 - that's everything north of Edinburgh, which stops LNER cascading their Class 800 stock, and it's everything south west of Bristol, which stops GWR cascading their Class 800 and 802 stock.

Even MML electrification doesn't allow replacement of Class 810 diesel stock with a pure EMU as all the diversionary routes will still need electrification before you can seriously consider cascading bi-mode units away from EMR.

 

[Meerkat]

The ECML was always tight on spare power capacity, and there were issues in getting the original electrification signed off

”Why can’t NR do electrification as cheap as BR ECML” people carped......

Even MML electrification doesn't allow replacement of Class 810 diesel stock with a pure EMU as all the diversionary routes will still need electrification before you can seriously consider cascading bi-mode units away from EMR.

Are the savings from selling on the engines, less maintenance, and lighter trains reducing energy and track access costs, insignificant then?
Whilst admittedly not ideal the ECML managed without diversionary routes for the 91s for quite a while.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Are the savings from selling on the engines, less maintenance, and lighter trains reducing energy and track access costs, insignificant then?
Whilst admittedly not ideal the ECML managed without diversionary routes for the 91s for quite a while.

Yes, the savings are insignificant - you're selling a specialised rail traction engine which only has part of its service life left into a market which is trying to cut down on the use of internal combustion for public transport. You'll get more weighing them in for scrap than selling them into the rail traction market, and any savings you make in track access charges and maintenance costs will then be taken up hiring in locomotives to drag those units around the remaining unelectrified parts of the network.

With regards to the ECML diversions, BR and subsequent franchises had the fleet of HSTs which could cover most diversionary work at short notice, and the IC225 fleet which could be dragged easily using a standard diesel locomotive when doing things like the Carlisle drags. Virgin and Avanti have the Class 221 units which came in rather useful running on the GSWR route into Glasgow when the northern WCML was shut at Lamington.

 

[Energy]

a)re-power all Turbostars and Civties with MTU Hybrid power packs (Euro IIIB engine, 6 speed gearbox, battery pack). This should also be considered for 158 and 165/166

Civities already have the power pack just no batteries. Porterbrook already plan to have them for turbostars, a 168 is getting trialed at some point.

From memory, the pan/tran vehicle was new build, wasn't it ?

I believe so, I think this was when Derby was running a little low on work so they were trying to get another order.

Has anyone thought about the software side of this? Does Bombardier still have the source code for the management computers?

Alstom made the computers and electronics. Whether Bombardier have the code is unknown but unlikely, Alstom wouldn't give the code away unless they needed to and they would only show the bits needed.

 

[crablab]

Whether Bombardier have the code is unknown but unlikely, Alstom wouldn't give the code away unless they needed to and they would only show the bits needed.

That's really a moot point then .
The issue at hand would be whether $SoftwareSupplier has the code and is able to modify it. Which is very much non-trivial.