Should AT300's be ordered for CrossCountry and East Midlands Trains

[Haydn1971]

Apparently the mk4s can't be used on the MML or on the Anglia-Liverpool St services.

Is that a personal Jcollins requirement haha

In all seriousness, what prevents their use ? Is the problem insurmountable ?

 

[pemma]

Do you get over to East Anglia much? Thetford a smaller station?

The population is getting on for 25,000. It is the most important intermediate stop between Ely and Norwich - because it's the most important town in the area.

It's a category E station and I see it gets annual usage of 0.295 million which to me sounds typical for a small town station.

Widnes has a population of 60,221 and the station gets annual usage of 0.456 million. It would probably be better for Widnes to get the Northern Connect Manchester Airport service once it starts instead of Liverpool-Norwich.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is that a personal Jcollins requirement haha

In all seriousness, what prevents their use ? Is the problem insurmountable ?

There's apparently some clearance issue. I'm not sure exactly why a mk4 would fail clearance when a mk3 passes clearance.

EDIT: Just checked the dimensions and the mk4 carriages are 40cm longer than a mk3 meaning the carriages are more like 180s than mk3s in terms of size.

 

[Haydn1971]

There's apparently some clearance issue. I'm not sure exactly why a mk4 would fail clearance when a mk3 passes clearance.

EDIT: Just checked the dimensions and the mk4 carriages are 40cm longer than a mk3 meaning the carriages are more like 180s than mk3s in terms of size.

Hopefully just at a few locations...

Alternatively then, where else could the Mk4s go ?

 

[43074]

Alternatively then, where else could the Mk4s go ?

Scrap?

 

[Emblematic]

I'm sure it's going to come down to cost - is Mk4 clearance more cost effective than prm-tsi mods on mark 3s? The window of opportunity for getting new stock in play by December 2019 must be getting small.

The more I think of it, the more I'm convinced that DfT are just going to leave it to the incoming East Midlands franchise to sort out. There's enough time for them to get cascaded or refurbished stock organised for 2020, and they can work out their strategy for electrification from there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Scrap?

It would be interesting to see whether any overseas operators are interested. Plenty of redundant stock has found further use in other countries. Kiwi MK2s, Nightstars to Canada, Mk3 sleepers to Denmark...

 

[Haydn1971]

The more I think of it, the more I'm convinced that DfT are just going to leave it to the incoming East Midlands franchise to sort out. There's enough time for them to get cascaded or refurbished stock organised for 2020, and they can work out their strategy for electrification from there.

I'm half expecting a complex cascade of bi-modes, reused loco hauled stock and new stock for the East Midlands franchise, especially with the 2020 timeframe and the HSTs, passenger growth and growing uncertainty on electrification timescales.

 

[43074]

The most pressing need for rolling stock on the MML is stock to replace the HSTs before the 2020 deadlines, then it will be electrification. EMU stock will be needed for the start of Corby electrics in 2019 but I don't think a particularly complex cascade will be required as the electrification to Sheffield & Nottingham is due for completion by 2023, there's plenty of time for an incoming franchisee to secure new or cascaded stock before then.

I doubt Mark 4s will feature as they're due for replacement in 2019 and the services for which they are most suited won't be converted to electric traction until 2023, the Meridians are fine until then.

 

[RobShipway]

Since the Mk4 stock can be used in between the HST power cars, I suspect as I believe was mentioned in another thread that the Mk4's may go northwards to Scotland inbetween said HST power cars. From 2017, the HST power cars on GWR and the class 91's/Mk4's will be replaced by class 800/801.

 

[Domh245]

Since the Mk4 stock can be used in between the HST power cars

No they definitely can't!

 

[Emblematic]

I know Scots are hardy folk but even they like heating and lighting on their trains
Scotrail already have their solution with the HSTs, which will need a few years use to recoup the investment. Don't expect those to be replaced until most of their lines are electrified.
MML choices short-term are:

• New stock, if anyone can supply in time
• HSTs + prm-tsi mods
• Mk4 + clearance work + 67s
• Mk4 + clearance work + 43s + ETS conversion / additional generators

Other even more esoteric suggestions doubtless possible. More Voyager-type stock would also work, but I can't see where it would come from.
TOCs prefer to buy stock at the start of a franchise so they get time to recoup the investment, so that might make a difference, as anything new would need to suit electrification.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There are only 16 HSTs left unaccounted for by the rolling stock procurement plans. At the rate Hitachi can build AT300s at their various plants, it would not take long to replace them like-for-like with bi-mode trains. Short derogations from the 2020 deadline would be practical for the HST fleet, so unless a future user for 32 odd 5-car bi-mode AT300s could not be found the economics of Mk4 use might not stack up.

When the Corby run goes up to an electrified 2tph, it could not only directly relieve the 222s currently used on the service but could reduce capacity requirements for other services by soaking up shorter distance passengers.

 

[freetoview33]

There are only 16 HSTs left unaccounted for by the rolling stock procurement plans. At the rate Hitachi can build AT300s at their various plants, it would not take long to replace them like-for-like with bi-mode trains. Short derogations from the 2020 deadline would be practical for the HST fleet, so unless a future user for 32 odd 5-car bi-mode AT300s could not be found the economics of Mk4 use might not stack up.

When the Corby run goes up to an electrified 2tph, it could not only directly relieve the 222s currently used on the service but could reduce capacity requirements for other services by soaking up shorter distance passengers.

What about the extensions to Melton Mowbray and onwards?

 

[Emblematic]

A derogation is much harder to obtain than a dispensation, although the latter is only used for minor deviations from the regulations such as dimensions being a few mm out. A derogation can only be applied in certain conditions, and the only one that might qualify is 'application of an applicable TSI would compromise the economic viability of the project.' Furthermore, it has to go to the European Commission for approval, which will be fun! Rather, I think the DfT will continue to push for compliance by 2020, even if it means more expense.

 

[NotATrainspott]

A derogation is much harder to obtain than a dispensation, although the latter is only used for minor deviations from the regulations such as dimensions being a few mm out. A derogation can only be applied in certain conditions, and the only one that might qualify is 'application of an applicable TSI would compromise the economic viability of the project.' Furthermore, it has to go to the European Commission for approval, which will be fun! Rather, I think the DfT will continue to push for compliance by 2020, even if it means more expense.

I used the wrong word then! Still, if I'm not mistaken, it's the UK that has said that trains have to be accessible by 2020, and the standard of accessibility is the PRM-TSI. If not, the ePacer project wouldn't be a thing, as the point of that was to try to demonstrate that a non-compliant design could be good enough to be allowed to continue running. The ePacer idea is politically disastrous, but I don't think anyone would complain that the HSTs had been allowed to continue running for a few months past an arbitrary deadline. Allowing that few months of leeway could save lots of time and effort in the long run over the entire ~30 year service life of the replacement trains.

 

[Emblematic]

Well, you're right that the date is both UK and arbitrary, but it's now enshrined in law and can't easily be circumvented. As to no complaints, expect disability groups, TOCs who achieved compliance at great cost, and not least the EHRC to weigh in, the latter having powers of enforcement. My guess is the DfT will opt for a quiet life.
The epacer is interesting, in that it addressed all the areas identified by the DfT under 'targeted compliance' as requiring attention, with some minor deficiencies anticipated to be covered by dispensation. It's purpose was partly to prove the feasibility and establish costs, and partly to gauge interest. I don't know whether compliance has been formally assessed yet, indeed the unit could still be withdrawn before 2020.

 

[Mikey C]

It's a category E station and I see it gets annual usage of 0.295 million which to me sounds typical for a small town station.

Widnes has a population of 60,221 and the station gets annual usage of 0.456 million. It would probably be better for Widnes to get the Northern Connect Manchester Airport service once it starts instead of Liverpool-Norwich.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


There's apparently some clearance issue. I'm not sure exactly why a mk4 would fail clearance when a mk3 passes clearance.

EDIT: Just checked the dimensions and the mk4 carriages are 40cm longer than a mk3 meaning the carriages are more like 180s than mk3s in terms of size.

Aren't the end cars of the 222 stock longer than MK4 carriages anyway?

 

[dosxuk]

Well, you're right that the date is both UK and arbitrary, but it's now enshrined in law and can't easily be circumvented. As to no complaints, expect disability groups, TOCs who achieved compliance at great cost, and not least the EHRC to weigh in, the latter having powers of enforcement. My guess is the DfT will opt for a quiet life.

I would be very surprised if an additional derogation isn't issued as a matter of course to vehicles which have a replacement awaiting delivery / introduction to service, if the alternative is widespread cancellations or a route proving exercise for stock borrowed from elsewhere.

If it's worded in such a way* that makes it impossible for incoming operators to use this as an excuse to put off the replacement, but instead is for sensible logistical or financial reasons (e.g. to make enough trains to make the deadline, they'll cost twice as much as a new factory will need to be built), there should be little argument against issuing such a derogation.

Given the choice of cancelling services completely, or allowing a limited amount of older stock to continue in use for a limited period, I suspect the ECHR / disability groups would opt for an easy life.

*e.g. Existing stock can only continue to be operated:
- for the duration of the introduction of the replacement stock
- when a type-approved and financed replacement is under-construction
- for a maximum amount of time agreed and justified between the manufacturer and DfT to allow for introduction of the stock (TOC gets no say)
- where no other reasonably practical solution is available
- each item of stock needs to be applied for (at TOC's cost) individually
- where reasonable efforts have been taken by the TOC and manufacturer to complete the replacement stock build before the expiry of the existing derogation
- when it hasn't previously been withdrawn from use

[Basically, you don't get an extension if you've not bought and financed enough replacement stock, sufficiently in advance of the deadline that you could reasonable expect it to have been built in time, and you only get to do it for the shortest period possible]

 

[Xavi]

Sounds as though it's a done deal, so 222s will augment XC after release from MML and journey times will remain the same as present (unchanged since after Operation Princess). The completed Reading and Norton Bridge schemes plus Filton Bank and Derby in the pipeline will help the time-keeping statistics.

I'll take that if it means I can get a seat and just a chance of paying something less than the most extortionately expensive long-distance fares on the whole network. Bring it on.

Seems as though the existing operator has taken up the option of journey time improvements on the Reading / Manchester axis following completion of Norton Bridge and Reading improvements. I should never have doubted my thoughts, but someone convinced us all otherwise.

 

[nottsnurse]

...might not be ideal for MML or XC, but I don't see them being scraped anytime soon.

Why not? They're only a year younger than the Class 442s which (crayonista day dreaming aside) are soon likely to start becoming razor blades.

 

[CosherB]

Since the Mk4 stock can be used in between the HST power cars, I suspect as I believe was mentioned in another thread that the Mk4's may go northwards to Scotland inbetween said HST power cars.

Just where do you get this rubbish from? :roll:

 

[RobShipway]

Just where do you get this rubbish from? :roll:

How is it rubbish when the Mk4's are compatible with the HST power cars?

To further answer your question it is also called doing research and asking the right question to the right person, which is more than can be said for some of the trash you provide within this forum.

 

[Haydn1971]

Why not? They're only a year younger than the Class 442s which (crayonista day dreaming aside) are soon likely to start becoming razor blades.

Because the 442s are only of use on third rail without lots of work to remove redundant equipment, the Mk4s are ready to roll and at 125mph

 

[Domh245]

How is it rubbish when the Mk4's are compatible with the HST power cars?

They AREN'T!

They both have a tightlock mechanical coupler, but that is where the similarities end.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

How is it rubbish when the Mk4's are compatible with the HST power cars?

To further answer your question it is also called doing research and asking the right question to the right person, which is more than can be said for some of the trash you provide within this forum.

Mark 4 coaching stock is NOT compatible with HST power cars, you've been told this repeatedly.

They can be made compatible, that comes at a cost, similarly, HST trailers could be made compatible for loco haulage, but that too comes at a cost.

 

[swt_passenger]

Seems as though the existing operator has taken up the option of journey time improvements on the Reading / Manchester axis following completion of Norton Bridge and Reading improvements. I should never have doubted my thoughts, but someone convinced us all otherwise.

Is that from the May Modern Railways? There didn't seem to be any change in Bournemouth to Man Picc overall end to end times, when I checked a few mid week trains a couple of days ago.

 

[nottsnurse]

Because the 442s are only of use on third rail without lots of work to remove redundant equipment, the Mk4s are ready to roll and at 125mph

Except:

- They (Mk4s) are not route cleared for the MML(and it sounds like it's more than just a tick box exercise required).
- What would they 'roll' behind, given rolling stock availability and infrastructure restrictions/requirements?
- Would it really be a sensible use of resources to introduce (with all the costs dealing with the above points would generate) new rolling stock for what would be a relatively short amount of time?

The MML and the customers it serves deserve better than just a bodge of cast-off almost 30 year old stock and whatever locomotives are knocking about spare, when said Mk4s are binned from their ECML duties. Is it not bad enough that MML customers pay a premium for their service compare to the other North/South mainlines without having to put up with more second-hand stock that'll likely provide a poorer service?

 

[Haydn1971]

Except:



- They (Mk4s) are not route cleared for the MML(and it sounds like it's more than just a tick box exercise required).

- What would they 'roll' behind, given rolling stock availability and infrastructure restrictions/requirements?

- Would it really be a sensible use of resources to introduce (with all the costs dealing with the above points would generate) new rolling stock for what would be a relatively short amount of time?



The MML and the customers it serves deserve better than just a bodge of cast-off almost 30 year old stock and whatever locomotives are knocking about spare, when said Mk4s are binned from their ECML duties. Is it not bad enough that MML customers pay a premium for their service compare to the other North/South mainlines without having to put up with more second-hand stock that'll likely provide a poorer service?

I couldn't agree more that it would be great for MML to get new stock, but given its a few years away, we just don't what the then thinking will be... Hopefully fresh and new, but given the Mk3s will have given over 40 years service, the realist in me expects the Mk4s to soldier on - it's what we have become used to...

The real elephant in the room is what will happen post HS2 when MML like other existing main lines lose their focus on long distance and something has to be done to utilise 100s of ageing 390s and 22x DEMUs and not so old 80Xs in a classic rail world that isn't going to need 140mph capable trains, so yes, I keep thinking at MML will get Mk4s as wires creep north (Sheffield by 2023), as there will be a surplus of 140mph capable trains post 2026, once HS2 Phase 1 comes online, with even more post Phase 2.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The long term thinking on all routes is maximum seat capacity and minimised operational costs, and that will mean that Mk4 sets, the 390s and the 22x fleet will always be at a disadvantage compared to state-of-the-art InterCity E(D)MUs. It won't matter if the Mk4s are cheap to lease if they aren't capable of carrying enough passengers fast enough while stopping at enough places to maximise revenue.

The concept of putting Mk4s between HST power cars works for the awkward period of time between when a dispensation from the rules would be inappropriate and when it would become reasonable to spend lots of time and money completely rebuilding the ends of Mk3 vehicles for power doors and retention toilets. Allowing non-compliant HSTs to continue running for a few weeks past the December 31st 2019 deadline would be no great controversy, but it would take years for the cost of the upgrades to be worthwhile. Since the Mk4 passenger vehicles are already fundamentally compatible with the new regulations, it would not take long for a set displaced from the ECML to be ready for use elsewhere even if minor modifications are needed to make it fully compliant. The HST power cars will have been freed up earlier, and so there would be more time to fit the 415V 3ph AC to 1000V DC converters and make any other necessary control wiring changes needed to allow them to work with the Mk4s. After a few years, once they are no longer required, the power cars and Mk4s can be sent straight to the scrapheap.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The real elephant in the room is what will happen post HS2 when MML like other existing main lines lose their focus on long distance and something has to be done to utilise 100s of ageing 390s and 22x DEMUs and not so old 80Xs in a classic rail world that isn't going to need 140mph capable trains, so yes, I keep thinking at MML will get Mk4s as wires creep north (Sheffield by 2023), as there will be a surplus of 140mph capable trains post 2026, once HS2 Phase 1 comes online, with even more post Phase 2.

And yet both the DfT and Network Rail are suggesting that the MML will run to the same timetable as it does at the moment, although one would hope that with electrification journey times will continue to improve.

If you live in the East Midlands and to a certain extent Sheffield HS2 is of little use to you. In fact I dare say that the Government would much rather not build a HS2 station in the East Midlands but politics have decided otherwise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well there isn't much existing choice other than the 67s at the moment, but how long would a new 125mph diesel or preferably bi-mode loco take to bring to the UK market ? 18-24 months perhaps ?

Start running class 67's on the MML and rail users will quickly move over to the M1. From what I've read it would be very difficult to get them to run at 125mph on the MML with a rake of Mk4's behind them.

 

[The Ham]

The real elephant in the room is what will happen post HS2 when MML like other existing main lines lose their focus on long distance and something has to be done to utilise 100s of ageing 390s and 22x DEMUs and not so old 80Xs in a classic rail world that isn't going to need 140mph capable trains, so yes, I keep thinking at MML will get Mk4s as wires creep north (Sheffield by 2023), as there will be a surplus of 140mph capable trains post 2026, once HS2 Phase 1 comes online, with even more post Phase 2.

The thing is the MML is likely to see over 50% more passengers using it by 2032 (17 years of 2.5% growth per year) as such flows which currently don't quite justify a service may do by then.

Yes you will loose all the end to end passengers, but there will be significant numbers of people to/from the intermediate stations (either between the various intermediate stations but also to each of the end stations including London).

Any express (end to end only) services will no longer be required, but those paths can be used to run slower services to make the MML services more attractive to the remaining users.

As such it could well be that what is needed is Loco hauled Mark 4's running the express services (say 5 or 6 coaches long to gain a bit better acceleration), which can then be replaced with EMU's or 222's as they are replaced by EMU's as the wires spread.