My proposal for IEP derived sleeper stock

[NotATrainspott]

The current sleeper stock is going to need replaced at some point in the not so distant future, unless there were very extensive refurbishments done which would still be limited by the original carriage layout. The current SLEP coaches don't seem to meet the expectations of customers either, if the comments I heard at the station when one arrived are to be believed.

Any new stock would have to be a completely custom order, which would need to allow both an independently-powered mode for the extremites and electric mode for the mainline work. New LHCS could be used but it seems a lot of the operational complexity of running the services (especially the Highland one, with the myriad operations needed at Edinburgh to split and join) is due to that. It would also presumably be useful for any new stock to share characteristics with the normal daytime intercity stock on the same routes to reduce maintenance costs. With these factors, wouldn't it be a reasonable suggestion to base any new sleeper stock on IEP?

Obviously it wouldn't be as simple as another order of the same, as the window arrangement would need to be altered dramatically, and you would need to find some way of de-rating the traction package down from 140 to 100mph. A 380-esque cab would also need to be fitted to allow the units (presumably 5 car, 130m long) to join properly. Preferably also they wouldn't be aquired based on the stupid PFI-style scheme the daytime trains will be and would be instead bought outright.

By specifying 130m long sets, you could fit three within a single 400m long platform, which would be ideal for the now-disused international platforms at Waterloo, especially during any works at Euston. You could string up a tiny bit of 25kV on the now-four disused platforms to provide a shore supply and you wouldn't need to rush passengers off to allow another train to use the platform in the morning (or evening). Since all the units would be bi-modal, they could run self-powered until they reach OHLE, and can then go straight onto unelectrified routes without the hassle of a locomotive. Obviously this would also be of benefit for non-electrified diversions too. The units would also be faster accelerating over the hillier country ends of the network, and would be lighter so might not be as subject to the same speed restrictions as a 67+LHCS is up to Fort William. Also, with the carriages now being 3m longer you can fit more revenue-earning features.

Clearly the reduction in complexity would also reduce flexibility somewhat too - formations would be fixed so it wouldn't be able to respond as easily to seasonal variations (such as the extra summer coach on Fort William services which would otherwise be on the Aberdeen) but it seems that currently most of the capacity constraints are due to the limited platform lengths at Euston anyway. These certainly aren't helped by having to make room for two 90s.

It's just a thought, which will probably draw the ire of the people who seem so vehemently opposed to the IEP in daytime form. I suppose it makes most sense only if the Night Riviera were removed from the Great Western franchise and given to the new Caledonian Sleeper one - maybe that might even be the time for a return of the Cross-Country sleeper too if it could be diagrammed.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Hmmm... 5 car Sleeper units?

I think I was somewhat ahead of you there with this idea:

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/documents/rail/rail2014/individuals/Mugridge, Peter.pdf

Sleeper services, in their current
format, are a very labour-intensive
operation. This is especially true of the
‘Caledonian Sleeper’, where rakes are
split and joined to serve different destinations
from one service.

At Carstairs, the Lowland Sleeper from
London Euston to the Central Belt splits, with
portions running to Edinburgh and Glasgow.
At Edinburgh, the 18-coach 2115 Highland
Sleeper departure from Euston is split into
three portions, with trains then running to
Aberdeen, Inverness and Fort William. The
reverse happens on the return journey, with
the three portions formed into one train which
then heads south.

Yet these services provide a vital link for
long-distance travellers. Plus, by avoiding
daytime travel, business users can boost their
productivity. The Sleeper saves a day each way
- it is possible to work a full day in an office
anywhere within range of the M25, catch the
Sleeper, and arrive (refreshed from a night’s
sleep) for an early meeting hundreds of miles
away.

Leisure travellers also make good use of the
Sleeper - it is quite common to see couples or
even parents with young children using the
Sleeper as their means of travel for a holiday or
a weekend break.

However, the labour-intensive methods of
working have confined Sleeper operations
to two core routes in the UK for the past two
decades.

So is it possible to increase flexibility and
reduce costs without compromising service
levels - and possibly even allow a modest
expansion?

I believe this can be done by means of
a carefully designed purpose-built fleet
of Electro-Diesel Sleeper Multiple.....

( Continues for several pages with pictures .)

I can imagine one or two members on here squawking a bit when they realise that my article has been used as part of the formal TS2014 consultation...!!

 

[The Ham]

It would also have the advantage that the mainternace would be standised with the rest of the ICEC and GWML fleets.

 

[RobShipway]

One point you need to bear in mind is that at least two of the four disused platforms of Waterloo International will be used by South West Trains in the not too distant future, so there would only be two platforms spare.

Plus any overhead electrification is only planned between Basingstoke to Southampton of the SWML, so you would need the units to be either using their hybrid diesel power or have the capability to be AC third rail powered.

But as Peter comments, he was a bit ahead of you on this subject.

 

[jopsuk]

the OHL suggestion was for a short section inside the station- so that the hybrid power could be used to get the units there, but then the engines shut down with power being provided through the OHL to keep all the onboard services active.

 

[Eagle]

One point you need to bear in mind is that at least two of the four disused platforms of Waterloo International will be used by South West Trains in the not too distant future, so there would only be two platforms spare.

Wrong on two counts. There are five disused platforms at Waterloo International, and only one of them (platform 20) will be brought back into use. That leaves four spare platforms (21 to 24).

 

[RobShipway]

Wrong on two counts. There are five disused platforms at Waterloo International, and only one of them (platform 20) will be brought back into use. That leaves four spare platforms (21 to 24).

Okay, thanks Eagle....

 

[swt_passenger]

Wrong on two counts. There are five disused platforms at Waterloo International, and only one of them (platform 20) will be brought back into use. That leaves four spare platforms (21 to 24).

They aren't going to be spare for ever. CP5 will see them used to increase station capacity generally. They are now talking about a big bang extension of all remaining platforms (that are not currently capable) to 12 car, because 10 car main suburban side platforms are seen as a short term solution. P1 to P4 cannot be extended to 12 car in their current positions so a couple would close, replaced one for one by shuffling everything else over towards the river...

 

[jopsuk]

Which is a good long term plan, but will be hugely disruptive due to the station throat pointwork alterations.

Ideally it would be accomponied by removal of the Eurostar flyover to allow restoration of a fully 8-track railway from Waterloo to Clapham (this would also involve some changes at Queenstown Road I assume).

 

[The Ham]

Even assuming the loss of 2 of platforms 1-4 (with the other two being lengthened), plus platform 20 that still leaves 2 long platforms for sleeper use.

Of course there is always the possibility of Crossrail 2 reducing the need for quite so many 12 coach long platforms.

 

[Muzer]

Which is a good long term plan, but will be hugely disruptive due to the station throat pointwork alterations.

Ideally it would be accomponied by removal of the Eurostar flyover to allow restoration of a fully 8-track railway from Waterloo to Clapham (this would also involve some changes at Queenstown Road I assume).

Would it be worth keeping at least the ability to go that way? Is there still a flat junction there for any rare moves that might require it? Or is it completely useless now Eurostar is gone?

 

[Eagle]

A railtour (Hastings to Weymouth) used it a couple of weeks ago. :P

 

[jopsuk]

Would it be worth keeping at least the ability to go that way? Is there still a flat junction there for any rare moves that might require it? Or is it completely useless now Eurostar is gone?

Still fully connected. The occasional tour or engineering train may use it. An eight track would be much more useful- it would be in use all day every day.

 

[Monty]

Wrong on two counts. There are five disused platforms at Waterloo International, and only one of them (platform 20) will be brought back into use. That leaves four spare platforms (21 to 24).

Within the next few years all five platforms will be put back into use. This is a necessity to allow platforms 1-4 to be closed and lengthened in the medium term.

 

[The Ham]

Within the next few years all five platforms will be put back into use. This is a necessity to allow platforms 1-4 to be closed and lengthened in the medium term.

But once the works are done to 1-4 they could become free again, and given we are talking about IEP, even if they are a new build it is unlikely that they would start after 2020.

 

[transmanche]

It's just a thought, which will probably draw the ire of the people who seem so vehemently opposed to the IEP in daytime form.

There are a lot of people on here who object to MU operation (whether EMU or DMU) due to the noise and vibration from underfloor engines. I'm not one of them, I don't find it an issue.

But even I have to question whether underfloor engines are appropriate for a sleeper service.

 

[455driver]

But once the works are done to 1-4 they could become free again, and given we are talking about IEP, even if they are a new build it is unlikely that they would start after 2020.

Try reading the posts above, only 2 of the platforms are being extended, the other 2 cannot be extended as there is an underbridge and some big buildings in the way.
Once the work is done Waterloo will have 2 less platforms than it does now.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There are a lot of people on here who object to MU operation (whether EMU or DMU) due to the noise and vibration from underfloor engines. I'm not one of them, I don't find it an issue.

But even I have to question whether underfloor engines are appropriate for a sleeper service.

Remember though that in any case the majority of the night would be over electrified routes. Also, to the best of my knowledge even in a bi-modal daytime IEP there isn't an engine under every carriage. If the services did run from Waterloo International under diesel power until reaching their main line then the speeds wouldn't be very high, so you could even just use a single engine (I seem to remember that 9-car electric IEPs will be fitted with a single engine capable of self-rescuing at 30mph) and they wouldn't be spending much time there anyway.

In Scotland, since EGIP should be done and dusted they would probably have started on the routes to Aberdeen and Inverness, so there would be even less time spent running at night in diesel mode. The speeds on the WHL are also probably low enough to only need one engine in use, and assuming the whole of Cowlairs to Knightswood North junction were electrified you would have electric running all the way to Helensburgh Upper.

The Cornish end might be a bit more problematic since it will spend a lot more of its time off the wires, but again since it will be served by bi-modal units (once the HSTs are cascaded elsewhere or to the scrapheap, hopefully combined with a bi-modal regional EDMU to replace the Sprinters) gradual electrification of the remainder might be possible too.

Since the Riviera is also unnaturally slow I could even imagine that a Cross-Country sleeper could use the electrified EWR link if its own main line were not electrified by then.

 

[The Ham]

Try reading the posts above, only 2 of the platforms are being extended, the other 2 cannot be extended as there is an underbridge and some big buildings in the way.
Once the work is done Waterloo will have 2 less platforms than it does now.

Yes I know, but that would still allow 2 platforms for use by sleepers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Remember though that in any case the majority of the night would be over electrified routes. Also, to the best of my knowledge even in a bi-modal daytime IEP there isn't an engine under every carriage. If the services did run from Waterloo International under diesel power until reaching their main line then the speeds wouldn't be very high, so you could even just use a single engine (I seem to remember that 9-car electric IEPs will be fitted with a single engine capable of self-rescuing at 30mph) and they wouldn't be spending much time there anyway.

In Scotland, since EGIP should be done and dusted they would probably have started on the routes to Aberdeen and Inverness, so there would be even less time spent running at night in diesel mode. The speeds on the WHL are also probably low enough to only need one engine in use, and assuming the whole of Cowlairs to Knightswood North junction were electrified you would have electric running all the way to Helensburgh Upper.

The Cornish end might be a bit more problematic since it will spend a lot more of its time off the wires, but again since it will be served by bi-modal units (once the HSTs are cascaded elsewhere or to the scrapheap, hopefully combined with a bi-modal regional EDMU to replace the Sprinters) gradual electrification of the remainder might be possible too.

Since the Riviera is also unnaturally slow I could even imagine that a Cross-Country sleeper could use the electrified EWR link if its own main line were not electrified by then.

Given West of Plymouth there are not many sections that go above 60mph running a sleeper at 30mph shouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

[transmanche]

Remember though that in any case the majority of the night would be over electrified routes.

Yes, but even electric motors are not silent. A lot quieter than diesel engines, yes - but not silent.

 

[Yew]

Yes, but even electric motors are not silent. A lot quieter than diesel engines, yes - but not silent.

With good insulation I think that an electric motor could be significantly less disturbing than mk3 corridor creaking.

 

[Eagle]

I am going to hypothesize that anyone who thinks that LHCS sleeper stock is quiet has never been on a Mk2 sleeper rake. :P

I find it impossible to sleep with all the random squeaking and bumping. Give me the soothing continuous purr of a DMU engine any day. (I find it quite easy to go to sleep on a DMU.)

 

[transmanche]

I am going to hypothesize that anyone who thinks that LHCS sleeper stock is quiet has never been on a Mk2 sleeper rake. :P

No, I'll admit I've never been on a UK sleeper train (although I have in Germany and Australia). Obviously sleeper travel in the UK isn't as nice as I thought it must be.

 

[LateThanNever]

Yes I know, but that would still allow 2 platforms for use by sleepers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Given West of Plymouth there are not many sections that go above 60mph running a sleeper at 30mph shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Long overdue to improve the sleeper operations -almost on any basis - and absolutely essential without the Newquay airport services to have a service from Cornwall to Scotland but does anyone listen..???

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes I know, but that would still allow 2 platforms for use by sleepers.

But you are assuming they don't use all five platforms. One of the ways to increase overall capacity is to leave trains in whatever platform they arrive in until after the morning peak, because down line capacity and junction conflicts in the throat (to get the empties to Clapham Yard) is already a constraint on operations. If all five international platforms (including P20 already planned) are made available to Windsor side service groups, then two more long platforms in the middle of the station can be used to berth two full length trains arriving in the high peak.

In any case, although the strategy to lengthen P1 to P4 is generally assumed to require a 'two platform shuffle' as previously described, what about the other platforms that are not 12 car length elsewhere in the station - maybe there's a solution that involves closing and 'functionally resiting' yet another platform we don't yet know about?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Why cannot platforms 1 and 2 be retained for the shorter services ( up to 8 cars )? Will the work on 3 and 4 block the approach to 1 and 2?

 

[swt_passenger]

Why cannot platforms 1 and 2 be retained for the shorter services ( up to 8 cars )? Will the work on 3 and 4 block the approach to 1 and 2?

I'm sure they've previously explained that P1/2 would be lost because the overall width of the viaduct the station throat is built on is the limiting factor.

The aim is to run all or nearly all main line side inner suburban trains at 10 or eventually 12 car length. So I guess the difficulty would be providing routes across the station throat towards the existing P1 and P2 whilst maintaining an optimised set of S&C between the main slow pair of tracks and the first 5 or 6 longer platforms. I'm no expert but I expect there's some sort of practical limit on how much you can 'fan out' the approach tracks and still allow efficient operations.

 

[transmanche]

Just looking at an overhead view of Waterloo station shows the extent of the problem.

Platforms 1-4 are the short platforms on the right (already tapered at the ends). The international platforms are on the left, you can just see them emerging at the bottom of the picture.

 

[The Ham]

But you are assuming they don't use all five platforms. One of the ways to increase overall capacity is to leave trains in whatever platform they arrive in until after the morning peak, because down line capacity and junction conflicts in the throat (to get the empties to Clapham Yard) is already a constraint on operations. If all five international platforms (including P20 already planned) are made available to Windsor side service groups, then two more long platforms in the middle of the station can be used to berth two full length trains arriving in the high peak.

In any case, although the strategy to lengthen P1 to P4 is generally assumed to require a 'two platform shuffle' as previously described, what about the other platforms that are not 12 car length elsewhere in the station - maybe there's a solution that involves closing and 'functionally resiting' yet another platform we don't yet know about?

Look a tthe photo transmanche provided (and google maps) it looks like platform 12 has a 10 car 444 (or 442 depending on the age of the photo) making it at least 230m long (although there appears to be a bit of extra space at the end).

Given that all the other platforms from 7 onwards seam to be of this length and 5 & 6 only seam to be a little short, it looks to be viable to lengthen all the platforms at Waterloo to 12 coach length with the loss of two platforms. However, it may even be possible to do with just the loss of one platform, espicially if the platform space of 1 could overhang the footway of Station Approach Road towards the end.

 

[swt_passenger]

Using the 450 as the benchmark cos it's a 20m unit, platforms 1-7, 11, 17 and 19 cannot support a 12.450. The slightly shorter 10.444 can fit in 7 and 11, but not 17 and 19.
(444s are not permitted in 1-4 at all due to gauge restrictions.)