Proposed Class 223?

[Failed Unit]

Lol: you must work for the oil companies. I suspect virgin don't drag a pendo as it will earn them more money going between London and Glasgow as loadings are not big enough.

But designing a new class of DMU when we have more than enough of the things already just to serve a few marginal routes is a waste of money. Modify what we have by all means, making voyagers able to operate electrically is a good. If MML was electrified it would not be value for money to keep the Lincoln service.

Anyway there is a speed limit over the flat crossing and frieght trains get held at the sewer so you logic is yet again flawed by what happens daily.

 

[Zoe]

Then why were HSTs on the Eastern Region not replaced with conventional loco hauled formations that could be hauled by electric traction? They apparently preferred to use diesels all the way.

I was told once that it was due to the logistics of having to change the locomotive at Edinburgh and also that there wasn't anywhere to cascade the remaining HSTs to so it was better to keep them in service on the ECML rather than have them sitting around doing nothing. Not sure how true this is.

 

[Failed Unit]

I was told once that it was due to the logistics of having to change the locomotive at Edinburgh and also that there wasn't anywhere to cascade the remaining HSTs to so it was better to keep them in service on the ECML rather than have them sitting around doing nothing. Not sure how true this is.

There was XC back then, but I guess the mk3 from the WCML were pencilled in there, but IC250 never happened.

 

[Zoe]

There was XC back then, but I guess the mk3 from the WCML were pencilled in there, but IC250 never happened.

Would have been more diesels under the wires though if HSTs had been used on the West Coast XC routes rather than a locomotive change at Birmingham.

 

[Failed Unit]

Would have been more diesels under the wires though if HSTs had been used on the West Coast XC routes rather than a locomotive change at Birmingham.

Depends which ones, the Manchester routes would not have been as bad. But remember BR didnt run as many HSTs under the wires as east coast do. We have 4 diagrams that are now 100% under the wires. Not sure how many HSTs were on the ECML under BR but GNER got a few more. After the thankfully didn't lease the pendo's or didn't continue with the 373s

 

[HSTEd]

But designing a new class of DMU when we have more than enough of the things already just to serve a few marginal routes is a waste of money. Modify what we have by all means, making voyagers able to operate electrically is a good. If MML was electrified it would not be value for money to keep the Lincoln service.

If I assume you mean intercity DMUs like Voyagers and Class 180s.....
If the Birmingham-North services are converted to electric traction then that frees ten additional Class 221s.

If we assume formations can be reshuffled with the addition of pantograph trailers from the eVoyager project then five of them will be used to replace the remaining HSTs at XC.

Five remaining 221 sets, plus however many sets are cascaded from East Midlands trains.... I will assume you axe all non core routes and thus 27 sets will be available.

You now have:

5 5-car 221s (remaining motor cars will have been retained by XC for capacity enhancement)
6 9-car ED 222s
17 6-car ED 222s
4 5-car ED 222s.
If you order additional transformer cars and disproportionate the Class 222s into nine and 5 car sets..... you can convert the fleet into:
5 5-car ED 221s.
11 9-car ED 222s
1 8-car ED 222
qt 5-car ED 222

Now.... you can send all twelve of the long 8/9-car ED 222s to the Great Western to replace its HSTs for Cornwall services and perhaps for an additional round trip to Carmarthen or the like.

This leaves you with:
5 5-car ED 221s
15 5-car ED 222s

So you have a pair of fleets of 221s and 222s, the 221 fleet would be needed for the GC services that are currently all diesel to go to electrodiesel.
The other would be the only fleet of Electrodiesels available for any other operations, and would not even be sufficient for the non electrified TPE branches, let alone all the other routes that are largely under wires but will have to remain diesel operated.

There just aren't enough electrodiesels even with the IEP.
And this is before we get around to replacing "express" services that will operated significantly over wire but will not be operated by electrics because half of the route is not electrified.

And a 4 car ED 22x of the type I described would have similar fuel and track access costs to a 3/4 car lashup of 175s.... on all diesel diagrams.

Anyway there is a speed limit over the flat crossing and frieght trains get held at the sewer so you logic is yet again flawed by what happens daily.

... That doesn't disprove it causing problems for ECML capacity, it just means that it is currently tolerable, if you add two more periods of disruption each day (one round trip), how much more disruption will there be?

By your argument there is no problem with dragging a train over that crossing every 10 minutes because it will have no more impact on the ECML.

EDIT:
And what was wrong with the 373s?
They had more capacity than anything else GNER could hope to have access to

 

[sprinterguy]

Then why were HSTs on the Eastern Region not replaced with conventional loco hauled formations that could be hauled by electric traction? They apparently preferred to use diesels all the way.

Because the 225 order was made to be as small as was possible to provide the proposed electrified services in order to reduce costs in a pressured economy (Orders for mark 4s that would have seen the 225s operating as 10-car formations were cancelled), so there would be no spare rolling stock to operate the off-wires services as electric loco hauled to Edinburgh, and no electric locos capable of 125mph (Barring one class 89) to haul them and keep up with the electric schedules. HSTs had of course worked the ECML before the wires went up, so it makes sense that a smaller number were kept on to work the off-wires services.

Also as Zoe suggests, appropriate homes for that many displaced HSTs may have been hard to come by, and keeping HSTs on the East Coast saved money on investing in replacement locos and carriages for the off-wires services. The necessity of loco changes at Edinburgh probably played a part, too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or why were HSTs used on various diesel routes on the West Coast Main Line rather than diesel loco hauled extensions of the existing electric locomotive hauled sets?

HSTs on the WCML Crosscountry services were the exception rather than the rule though. Most of the XC services to Manchester and Edinburgh/Glasgow via the WCML were loco hauled, the HSTs worked a smaller number of services, principally those towards the South West.

Loco changes from electric to diesel with mark 3 sets did also take place not irregularly on the North Wales services, even though, yes, quite a lot of those services were formed of HSTs.

 

[HSTEd]

There are numerous services that can benefit from bi-mode but will not because there are not enough sets to go around, even with the large IEP order.

ATW Manchester-West Wales services, the entire non-electric TPE Network (as Class 185s are more fuel intensive to operate than a 4 car 22x set, let alone a 4 car ED set with similar diesel power output).
They are also useful for generating new service opportunities that still allow for use of existing electrified infrastructure where possible.

There should be no more pure diesel high power stock, only bi modes and electrics.

 

[Failed Unit]

EDIT:
And what was wrong with the 373s?
They had more capacity than anything else GNER could hope to have access to

Didn't actually mean there was - but I can see how it reads like that. They maybe ate paths because of thier extended dwell times but I would much rather have then then the HST diagrams that are 100% under the wires. However driver training, spares, rescue etc means the HST is the more logical option.

 

[Yew]

Didn't actually mean there was - but I can see how it reads like that. They maybe ate paths because of thier extended dwell times but I would much rather have then then the HST diagrams that are 100% under the wires. However driver training, spares, rescue etc means the HST is the more logical option.

Dont forget that they are also limited to 110mph as they might blow the ECML's wires.

Maybe they could have Built some sort of Driving trailer and ran them as Half sets + DVT? To solve the power draw and length issues? these would have had about 300 seats.

 

[tbtc]

For me, IEP and HS2 should give us enough "high speed" trains. There are already enough 90/100mph trains (a lot of which are stuck on routes that are too slow for them, like LM's 170s on all stop services or FSR's 158s on Whifflet trips). What we need are 75mph basic units that will allow the 90/100mph trains to be used on duties suitable for them (and IEP/HS2 will take care of the "biggest" services). No need for "223"s.

remember BR didnt run as many HSTs under the wires as east coast do

Mainly because of the increase in ECML paths since privatisation - BR ran roughly three services an hour off peak from Kings Cross (Leeds, Newcastle, Scotland). Now there are five East Coast ones (Leeds, Leeds, Newcastle, Scotland and a Newark/York one). There are no additional 225 sets, so these have had to be HSTs.

There are numerous services that can benefit from bi-mode but will not because there are not enough sets to go around, even with the large IEP order.

ATW Manchester-West Wales services, the entire non-electric TPE Network (as Class 185s are more fuel intensive to operate than a 4 car 22x set, let alone a 4 car ED set with similar diesel power output)

Neither of these need anything like 125mph trains.

 

[HSTEd]

Dont forget that they are also limited to 110mph as they might blow the ECML's wires.

Maybe they could have Built some sort of Driving trailer and ran them as Half sets + DVT? To solve the power draw and length issues? these would have had about 300 seats.

As I understand it the trains were operated at 125mph for the later part of there deployment on the East Coast, once tests showed that concerns over dragging down the wires was unfounded.

 

[Failed Unit]

As I understand it the trains were operated at 125mph for the later part of there deployment on the East Coast, once tests showed that concerns over dragging down the wires was unfounded.

Certainly south of Grantham, not sure about north.

 

[HSTEd]

For me, IEP and HS2 should give us enough "high speed" trains. There are already enough 90/100mph trains (a lot of which are stuck on routes that are too slow for them, like LM's 170s on all stop services or FSR's 158s on Whifflet trips). What we need are 75mph basic units that will allow the 90/100mph trains to be used on duties suitable for them (and IEP/HS2 will take care of the "biggest" services). No need for "223"s.

Class 172s fill the 75mph option, but we have to remember that the bulk of the 90/100mph fleet is approaching end of life rather rapidly, and will soon need replacing.

Neither of these need anything like 125mph trains.

Well I would argue that TPE North to Middlesbrough could do with 125mph running, since it could use it south of Northallerton as I understand it (I doubt the fast lines north of York are really that crowded?)

We also have to remember that Class 22x appear to have lower track access charges than many of the 100mph units that people are always singing the praises of (especially the Class 185s and 175s)
A 4 car ED 22x could be quite useful in replacing many of these 100mph units. (It has the important benefit over the Turbostar family, the only other real choice for diesel operations, that it can help build the case for electrification in many currently marginal areas).

There is also the "nosecone effect" to consider, since the Voyager family certainly looks a lot higher speed than the Turbostar does.

 

[Failed Unit]

The majority of the 90 - 100mph fleet reaching the end of its life? Really? 158s maybe, but the 16x, 17x etc have at least 15 years left! The pacers were built in 1984 no sign of replacement so I am sure the turbos are not going anywhere soon!

As for the 185 - over wieght and over powered. Don't think if TPE services were 125mph capable on the ECML it would save much, maybe 4 minutes considering they stop at Thirsk and Northallerton. Don't think even Newcastle ones would gain much as they are the stopping service.

 

[sprinterguy]

The majority of the 90 - 100mph fleet reaching the end of its life? Really? 158s maybe, but the 16x, 17x etc have at least 15 years left! The pacers were built in 1984 no sign of replacement so I am sure the turbos are not going anywhere soon!

I wouldn't even say that the 158s are that old: They only came into service in 1990/1. And the 170s and the 175s are still quite new trains in my eyes; the 185s even more so.

 

[Failed Unit]

I wouldn't even say that the 158s are that old: They only came into service in 1990/1. And the 170s and the 175s are still quite new trains in my eyes; the 185s even more so.

They will be 30 by 2020, but then if the ROSCOs think there is a business case to extend the 156 I am sure the 158 has more life yet.

 

[HSTEd]

I wouldn't even say that the 158s are that old: They only came into service in 1990/1. And the 170s and the 175s are still quite new trains in my eyes; the 185s even more so.

Which means the Class 158s will be 30 years old in 2020, they have a questionable case for a DDA rebuild as they will only have six or seven years left of useful service.

The earlier Class 16x will be in a similar boat as the first couple of classes are only a couple of years younger.

Those constitute a rather large percentage of the overall fleet of ~100mph units.

Despite the example set by the HST these units cannot go on much beyond 30 years.

Class 156 has an even worse case than the 158 thanks to not even having air conditioning, an amenity which is really a necessity these days.

 

[Failed Unit]

Which means the Class 158s will be 30 years old in 2020, they have a questionable case for a DDA rebuild as they will only have six or seven years left of useful service.

The earlier Class 16x will be in a similar boat as the first couple of classes are only a couple of years younger.

Those constitute a rather large percentage of the overall fleet of ~100mph units.

Despite the example set by the HST these units cannot go on much beyond 30 years.

Class 156 has an even worse case than the 158 thanks to not even having air conditioning, an amenity which is really a necessity these days.

Really, I suspect it is less than 50%. As for the 156 - Portabrook think it has a business case and they should know!

 

[Zoe]

Which means the Class 158s will be 30 years old in 2020, they have a questionable case for a DDA rebuild as they will only have six or seven years left of useful service.

Considernig some HSTs could be around 60 years old by the time they are withdrawn from service, are the 158s really of a lower quality so they wouldn't last as long?

 

[HSTEd]

As for the 156 - Portabrook think it has a business case and they should know!

I suspect this is more to do with the fact that they can extort more money from the government to provide replacement Turbostars (when people complain they have no air conditioning) if they can hike the rental charges on the Super Sprinters by rebuilding them for DDA compliance.
In 2020 any non DDA compliant stock is effectively worthless.


The HSTs are very much an outlier in terms of stock age at retirement, and need I remind you that the majority of the fleet will be gone long before then, so they can select the coaches and power cars that are in the best condition.

 

[ainsworth74]

As for the 156 - Portabrook think it has a business case and they should know!

I wonder if the difference isn't that the 156s are getting the work now so probably have ten years or maybe a bit more to make it pay?

 

[TGV]

Certainly south of Grantham, not sure about north.

They ran at 125mph between Woolmer Green and Stoke Tunnel (where permitted of course). 110 everywhere else (that allowed it).

Dwell times were rarely if ever under a minute - close to 2 minutes on most stops. SNCF time most TGV stops for this kind of dwell - particularly with Duplex sets.

 

[sprinterguy]

Which means the Class 158s will be 30 years old in 2020, they have a questionable case for a DDA rebuild as they will only have six or seven years left of useful service.

The earlier Class 16x will be in a similar boat as the first couple of classes are only a couple of years younger.

Those constitute a rather large percentage of the overall fleet of ~100mph units.

Despite the example set by the HST these units cannot go on much beyond 30 years.

Class 156 has an even worse case than the 158 thanks to not even having air conditioning, an amenity which is really a necessity these days.

Yes, at a distant point in the future the 158, Network Turbo and 17X trains will be nearing the end of their working lives. As will all trains eventually...Your post suggested they were approaching old age at the present time.

The fact that SWT are happily co-operating in a trial to fit a new Voith transmission to one of their 158s, to extend their useful lifespan, suggests that the entire rail industry feels that the 158s have a considerable length of useful life ahead of them.

As Failed Unit says, there isn't even a plan for Pacer replacement visible on the horizon at the moment, so with that in mind I think that the 158s have a long way to go yet.

I don't think that air conditioning is a necessity on the sorts of medium distance principally rural routes the 156s were designed to operate, where the onus is on generating as little additional cost as possible (In this case through increased fuel expenditure brought about by needing to power more auxillaries). Britain hasn't heated up that much in the last 20 - 25 years...

 

[RobShipway]

Remember that the 222 bodyshell is different to that of 220/221, as it is not designed to tilt. A development of the current Meridian would be suitable as "Class 223". Voyager units should remain in the 22x series in the name of continuity, since the series started as (is for now) diesel-only. I'm sure there's many ways to get aroun emissions regulations - could the 222s be re-engined, with existing power units going into Voyager trailers?

There's no guarantee of any work being done in the UK (Derby is not set up for steel-car production), but Bombardier could open a new factory if enough work is guaranteed. The complete eVoyager project and additional carriages for all fleets should do the trick.

Class 223; a worthy replacement for the Hitachi SET project?

I believe that both the Pantograph car and any new order such as suggested in this thread could be built in Derby as both the Class 172 and Voyagers are using the same Chassis structure and anybody parts could be shipped into Derby, in the same way that Hitachi will ship the body's for the IEP's into their factory from Japan.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suspect this is more to do with the fact that they can extort more money from the government to provide replacement Turbostars (when people complain they have no air conditioning) if they can hike the rental charges on the Super Sprinters by rebuilding them for DDA compliance.
In 2020 any non DDA compliant stock is effectively worthless.


The HSTs are very much an outlier in terms of stock age at retirement, and need I remind you that the majority of the fleet will be gone long before then, so they can select the coaches and power cars that are in the best condition.

Rather than having replacing Turbostars, would it not be better to have an e-Turbostar with the ability to have a pantograph in the Middle car of a three car set.

 

[Failed Unit]

Air conditioning? Fine when it works but give me a 156 in the summer over a 158, at least you can open the window! Does anyone know of any reason why the 158 can't be made compliant? It isn't as if it is a 153 with no access to the toilet for wheelchairs or a pacer.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, at a distant point in the future the 158, Network Turbo and 17X trains will be nearing the end of their working lives. As will all trains eventually...Your post suggested they were approaching old age at the present time.

2020 is not the "distant future"... it is only 8 years away, so much so that we are now ordering trains that will be entering service about that time (Thameslink/IEP).

The fact that SWT are happily co-operating in a trial to fit a new Voith transmission to one of their 158s, to extend their useful lifespan, suggests that the entire rail industry feels that the 158s have a considerable length of useful life ahead of them.

The article in that magazine about the project explained that the gearboxes are starting to wear out now. They may have to deal with reduced reliability unless they do the refit.
And if they really do get the projected 5% fuel saving for such a small investment it will probably pay back in the time left quite easily.

As Failed Unit says, there isn't even a plan for Pacer replacement visible on the horizon at the moment, so with that in mind I think that the 158s have a long way to go yet.

Pacer's are only a few years older than the Express Sprinters, so they are not at the 30 year mark yet and are able to push past it because they have no required expensive rebuild near the nominal end of life.
They might not be worth making DDA compliant, if that is even possible, but it does not mean that the Express Sprinters are.

I don't think that air conditioning is a necessity on the sorts of medium distance principally rural routes the 156s were designed to operate, where the onus is on generating as little additional cost as possible (In this case through increased fuel expenditure brought about by needing to power more auxillaries). Britain hasn't heated up that much in the last 20 - 25 years...

Well since an increasingly large number of private cars have acquired air conditioning in the last 25 years, the bar that defines what is acceptable comfort has raised considerably.
If we want more people on the railways we have to make them more comfortable.

Rather than having replacing Turbostars, would it not be better to have an e-Turbostar with the ability to have a pantograph in the Middle car of a three car set.

If you want a complete redesign that will resemble a corrupted Electrostar more than a Turbostar.....
It would be very expensive, even though that would normally be my preferred option.
Although a large amount of work on that was done by Bombardier back in the day for the TPE bid.

 

[sprinterguy]

2020 is not the "distant future"... it is only 8 years away, so much so that we are now ordering trains that will be entering service about that time (Thameslink/IEP).

And in 2020 the 158s still won't be due for withdrawal for several more years, let alone the 165s and 166s. The withdrawal date for 158s will be in the distant future. The fact that lead times for new rolling stock deliveries are so protracted only goes to show this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pacer's are only a few years older than the Express Sprinters, so they are not at the 30 year mark yet and are able to push past it because they have no required expensive rebuild near the nominal end of life.
They might not be worth making DDA compliant, if that is even possible, but it does not mean that the Express Sprinters are.

The 158s are considerably more railworthy than the Pacers are. Their nominal age in relation to each other isn't really a major factor. The 2020 DDA compliance deadline will not sound the deathknell for the Sprinter family of trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The article in that magazine about the project explained that the gearboxes are starting to wear out now. They may have to deal with reduced reliability unless they do the refit.
And if they really do get the projected 5% fuel saving for such a small investment it will probably pay back in the time left quite easily.

But they wouldn't be considering doing a refit if the trains weren't perceived to have a considerable amount of life left in them.

 

[Failed Unit]

I think to be honest the following is more important to passengers than air-conditioning.

Lack of traffic,
Avoidance of city centre parking.

Are you seriously suggesting that the deciding factor of someone getting the train to Nottingham from Mansfield is if the train is air-conditioned? I doubt it considering this is the uk and it is rarely hot enough to need it! Haven't seen many windows open on 156s this month.

 

[RobShipway]

I think to be honest the following is more important to passengers than air-conditioning.

Lack of traffic,
Avoidance of city centre parking.

Are you seriously suggesting that the deciding factor of someone getting the train to Nottingham from Mansfield is if the train is air-conditioned? I doubt it considering this is the uk and it is rarely hot enough to need it! Haven't seen many windows open on 156s this month.

I agree with your point, however even on days during the summer when it is wet it can become moist such that you would need even Air Conditioning or the ability to open more windows than are readily available on a Class 158.

I think there is actually more ability to get air on a SWT Class 455 unit!