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

[Kettledrum]

If you went for the option of fitting some of the MK3 coaches with plug doors using the precedent set by Chiltern, then how many coaches do you have to convert?

Do you have to convert every single coach still in use?

or could you simply convert one coach per HST rake?

If the latter, then it would cost much less, allow the MK3s to continue being used and have shorter lead in times.

 

[Haydn1971]

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.

Which kinda points to EMU solution doesn't it - the discussion gets muddled with the years the HSTs have been around, but that length was more a product of flatlined growth in the early 90s and we are still playing catch up.

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.

Clearly Nottingham will gain from HS2 as the home to station journey doesn't really change that much, perhaps improves with on site parking, but worse for tram users with the extra leg out to Toton... Derby will suffer to a degree pushing users to cars for the home to station part but will perhaps gain on a more regional level with clearing some express units out, Leicester stands to gain in my eyes, as the passengers north of there heading to London will mostly transfer, leaving more room for express and semi-fast services... Exciting times I'd say

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.

As above, it's starting to point towards EMUs and the Mk4s being used as a stop gap solution as the HSTs have outside of GWR land - thinking units to accommodate growth has been done on EMT/XC

 

[Philip Phlopp]

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.

There's a slight problem with the Mark 4 stock which could well make their early retirement desirable - they're really really expensive for track access charges (they're getting on for double the cost per vehicle mile compared to a Mark 3) thanks to those god awful SIG bogies and lardy Metro Cammell bodies. You can run a 2+8 HST with Mark 3 stock for the same cost as a 2+5 HST using converted Mark 4 stock.

I'd reckon (back of the cigarette packet, if I smoked) that for a stop-gap solution, it will be cheaper to add power doors to the Mark 3 stock rather than convert HST power cars to work with Mark 4 stock and pay higher track access charges.

 

[Haydn1971]

There's a slight problem with the Mark 4 stock which could well make their early retirement desirable - they're really really expensive for track access charges (they're getting on for double the cost per vehicle mile compared to a Mark 3) thanks to those god awful SIG bogies and lardy Metro Cammell bodies. You can run a 2+8 HST with Mark 3 stock for the same cost as a 2+5 HST using converted Mark 4 stock.

I'd reckon (back of the cigarette packet, if I smoked) that for a stop-gap solution, it will be cheaper to add power doors to the Mark 3 stock rather than convert HST power cars to work with Mark 4 stock and pay higher track access charges.

Adding more weight to the new Bi-mode/EMU arguments.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

I am not sure 442s are really going to go for scrap, the current political climate makes that quite... problematic.

They might just get pensioned off to a nice quiet retirement on the Coastway or something, where they won't ever be pushed hard and if they brew up it won't cause that much disruption.

 

[swt_passenger]

They might just get pensioned off to a nice quiet retirement on the Coastway or something...

Except they are both completely inappropriate stock, with end doors and long distance interiors, and out of gauge. Solution without a problem.

 

[edwin_m]

Clearly Nottingham will gain from HS2 as the home to station journey doesn't really change that much, perhaps improves with on site parking, but worse for tram users with the extra leg out to Toton... Derby will suffer to a degree pushing users to cars for the home to station part but will perhaps gain on a more regional level with clearing some express units out, Leicester stands to gain in my eyes, as the passengers north of there heading to London will mostly transfer, leaving more room for express and semi-fast services...

Depends where you live. For most people in the western part of Nottingham the HS2 station will be ideal for London journeys whether accessed by tram, car or any bus service that might appear. There are significant time savings on HS2 to Birmingham, Leeds or beyond, or Heathrow, so this will be the preferred rail choice for much of Nottingham.

However for central, eastern and some other parts of the Nottingham conurbation the Midland station will remain far more accessible especially by public transport. Importantly this includes the city centre, which will be a primary destination for inward visitors. Unless deliberately decelerated the fast London-Nottingham service on the MML will be around 90min by then, with scope to remove calls at Market Harborough (stop transferred to a new fifth Leicester train) or East Midlands Parkway (primarily a park and ride for London, so Toton will take most of its market and a fast London service would no longer be worthwhile). With HS2 offering a 53min London to Toton time the tram is simply too slow for central Nottingham and unless there is a fast heavy rail link with really slick connections there, the time saving via Toton won't be enough to make it worth the hassle of changing trains.

Much of the above applies in mirror image to Derby too, minus the benefit of the tram and noting that Toton to Nottingham is mostly urban but Toton to Derby is mostly rural so there is less catchment that side for HS2.

Leicester-London will gain nothing from HS2 so there will be an imperative to maintain a service at least as fast as today's, and a 125mph straight EMU or a bi-mode could shave off a few minutes. As these might as well continue to Derby, Nottingham or Sheffield and there are a limited number of places worth stopping at in between, then it is likely all the East Midlands cities would have London times via the MML at least as good as today's.

 

[ryan125hst]

I hope the Mark 4's don't end up being scrapped in a few years time as, in my opinion at least, they are very comfortable coaches. I'll be sad to see the HST's go but they'll be 40 years old by the time they are withdrawn and the slam doors give away the age of the train and the vestibule areas look old now. There's also the issue of them not having controlled emission toilets.

The Mark 4's on the other hand feel more modern as they have power operated doors and wider vestibules. They also have controlled emission toilets and are only approaching 30 years old, so potentially another decade left in them. The issue clearly is finding somewhere for them to operate, but I hope this can be found.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Depends where you live. For most people in the western part of Nottingham the HS2 station will be ideal for London journeys whether accessed by tram, car or any bus service that might appear. There are significant time savings on HS2 to Birmingham, Leeds or beyond, or Heathrow, so this will be the preferred rail choice for much of Nottingham.

However for central, eastern and some other parts of the Nottingham conurbation the Midland station will remain far more accessible especially by public transport. Importantly this includes the city centre, which will be a primary destination for inward visitors. Unless deliberately decelerated the fast London-Nottingham service on the MML will be around 90min by then, with scope to remove calls at Market Harborough (stop transferred to a new fifth Leicester train) or East Midlands Parkway (primarily a park and ride for London, so Toton will take most of its market and a fast London service would no longer be worthwhile). With HS2 offering a 53min London to Toton time the tram is simply too slow for central Nottingham and unless there is a fast heavy rail link with really slick connections there, the time saving via Toton won't be enough to make it worth the hassle of changing trains.

Much of the above applies in mirror image to Derby too, minus the benefit of the tram and noting that Toton to Nottingham is mostly urban but Toton to Derby is mostly rural so there is less catchment that side for HS2.

Agreed, the tram makes Midland Station much easier to access for most residents in the city of Nottingham, (20 minutes from Clifton in the south and 30 minutes from Hucknall in the North). Toton will only be easier to access by tram from the Western suburbs of Chilwell and Beeston (assuming the short extension to to the HS2 station happens) or people living along the M1 corridor who can drive to Toton.

 

[RichmondCommu]

As above, it's starting to point towards EMUs and the Mk4s being used as a stop gap solution as the HSTs have outside of GWR land - thinking units to accommodate growth has been done on EMT/XC

I concur that 125 mph capable EMU's should be ordered in time for the completion of the electrification project but I can't see how using Mk4's would work as a stop gap. You would need to find a diesel loco capable of running at 125 mph and able to keep to current MML timings, not to mention being able to adhere to EU emissions standards. Not only that but what would you do with the loco's once the MML is electrified? Would anyone in their right mind be willing to fund the purchase of expensive diesel loco's that only have guaranteed work for three to four years?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Much of the above applies in mirror image to Derby too, minus the benefit of the tram and noting that Toton to Nottingham is mostly urban but Toton to Derby is mostly rural so there is less catchment that side for HS2.

The other point worth mentioning here is that the A52 east bound is very busy in the morning with frequent delays at the Bardills traffic island and on the slip road down to the M1. In my opinion too much of a risk if you've got a train to catch.

 

[Carntyne]

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.

The Mk4s aren't going anywhere near ScotRail, it's Mk3 coaches fully refurbished with electrically operated doors in 2+4, 2+5 and eventually 2x2+6 sets.

 

[Haydn1971]

Depends where you live.

Isn't that always the case Regardless of where any station is built, there will always be winners and losers. The demographic could well be very different by 2032 too, I was involved in the design of the tramway in Sheffield, the route as approved by parliament in 1986 passed through numerous council estates, which by the time we were throwing track down in 1993-5 ish, were mostly demolished or in dire need of repair, plus the "on your bike" mantra of conservative 80s politics has seen car ownership balloon in the late 80s, early 90s as blue collar Sheffield did just that... The tram was originally envisaged as a means of getting Mr Blue collar to work, but actually became a means of white collar and student travel. Likewise, HS2 and classic rail may well be impacted by the trend now for younger people to avoid car ownership in their 20s, leading to a higher dependence on public transport and remote working beyond 2030

Leicester-London will gain nothing from HS2 so there will be an imperative to maintain a service at least as fast as today's, and a 125mph straight EMU or a bi-mode could shave off a few minutes. As these might as well continue to Derby, Nottingham or Sheffield and there are a limited number of places worth stopping at in between, then it is likely all the East Midlands cities would have London times via the MML at least as good as today's.

Agreed on Leicester, I'm less convinced on further north as the capacity used by express units to London would be far better used for local and regional services as these grow in future years - I see MML being busier than it is now, just not with long distance travellers

 

[edwin_m]

Agreed on Leicester, I'm less convinced on further north as the capacity used by express units to London would be far better used for local and regional services as these grow in future years - I see MML being busier than it is now, just not with long distance travellers

The London trains provide two fasts per hour between Leicester and each of Nottingham and Derby, which is probably the minimum adequate provision between cities of that size and spacing. So I think any extra service for intermediate stations will have to be with extra trains rather than extra stops in the existing ones. Unless these are split into separate workings terminating at Leicester (which would be operationally very difficult) then it follows that Nottingham and Derby will retain something similar to their existing MML service.

Sheffield may be a different matter, as the extra distance from London and the frequent service to Meadowhall probably makes changing there to HS2 the best option between the city centre and London. As I posted previously, this is very doubtful for Nottingham and Derby via Toton.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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.

mk4 stock is NOT compatible with HST production power cars , even if they can haul it

Production HST power cars provide 415 volt AC train supply

mk4 uses 1000v standard ETS

this is why when class 91 locos were used o nthe ECML prior to the arrival of the mk4 stock, the surrogate DVT HST power cars needed to have their engine running to provider ETS for the HST standard mk3 stock ...

 

[47802]

mk4 stock is NOT compatible with HST production power cars , even if they can haul it

Production HST power cars provide 415 volt AC train supply

mk4 uses 1000v standard ETS

this is why when class 91 locos were used o nthe ECML prior to the arrival of the mk4 stock, the surrogate DVT HST power cars needed to have their engine running to provider ETS for the HST standard mk3 stock ...

But potentially they could be modified, allegedly the latest power door option for MK3's using sliding doors rather than the Chiltern option, costs about 1million per 8 car train, so if VTEC can justify spending 21m on their fleet for a few years service then my money is on this option for the MML HST fleet.

 

[CosherB]

But potentially they could be modified, allegedly the latest power door option for MK3's using sliding doors rather than the Chiltern option, costs about 1million per 8 car train, so if VTEC can justify spending 21m on their fleet for a few years service then my money is on this option for the MML HST fleet.

Yes, engineering solutions alone can fix a multitude of problems, however, I'm afraid it's the bean counters that have the final say. I've no idea what the figures are, but to sandwich a Mk4 rake between HST power cars will need a multitude of changes to both the power cards and the carriages to make it work, and for how long? I very much doubt the numbers will stack up. Maybe a derogation for continued use of the Mk3s can be sought, with more modest engineering changes to satisfy the powers-that-be in the short term? Let's not get carried away with some of the wibble that gets bandied about on here!

 

[The Ham]

But potentially they could be modified, allegedly the latest power door option for MK3's using sliding doors rather than the Chiltern option, costs about 1million per 8 car train, so if VTEC can justify spending 21m on their fleet for a few years service then my money is on this option for the MML HST fleet.

By my works, the current VTEC is about £500,000 per train. Now yes that is for a fairly short period of time however there are a few factors which come into play:

- Some of the Mark 4's will continue to be used after the introduction of the 80x's
- It is the start of a very high profile (and profitable) franchise and so the travelling public (ad for that matter the TOC themselves) would expect some changes, if nothing else a very deep clean but more likely reupholstering of seats. Just imagine the fallout if VTEC said that they weren't going to make any changes to their trains until they were replaced
- A lot of the money being spent is money that would have to have been spent anyway (i.e. new paint jobs)
- Some of the cost could be down to having to do the works to the VTEC fleet whilst still using most of the fleet
- the quoted cost for the doors could be too low given the amount of time that has passed since the were done

That's not to say that it won't happen, rather it may not be so clear as the figures quote would imply.

 

[47802]

By my works, the current VTEC is about £500,000 per train. Now yes that is for a fairly short period of time however there are a few factors which come into play:

- Some of the Mark 4's will continue to be used after the introduction of the 80x's
- It is the start of a very high profile (and profitable) franchise and so the travelling public (ad for that matter the TOC themselves) would expect some changes, if nothing else a very deep clean but more likely reupholstering of seats. Just imagine the fallout if VTEC said that they weren't going to make any changes to their trains until they were replaced
- A lot of the money being spent is money that would have to have been spent anyway (i.e. new paint jobs)
- Some of the cost could be down to having to do the works to the VTEC fleet whilst still using most of the fleet
- the quoted cost for the doors could be too low given the amount of time that has passed since the were done

That's not to say that it won't happen, rather it may not be so clear as the figures quote would imply.

I don't what you mean by the quoted cost of the doors could be too low, as I understand it that 1 million per train is a current price, which is not for a Chiltern solution which I believe is more expensive but an alternate solution not yet used using sliding doors.

I'm not saying its clear cut but on those sort of prices I think it could happen plus there is no certainty that the electrification will be finished on time it would also give the option of letting Meridians go first if they are needed elsewhere.

I don't see the MK4 option between HST power cars being that likely, and AT300's yes possibly if they staying long term or they have an assured alternate home to go once electrification is complete.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not saying its clear cut but on those sort of prices I think it could happen plus there is no certainty that the electrification will be finished on time it would also give the option of letting Meridians go first if they are needed elsewhere.

With the limited future uses anyone can think up for Meridians, I don't think freeing them up adds at all to the case for spending more money than otherwise.

My gut feeling is that Mk4s between HST power cars is more do-able as a short term fix than fitting power doors to Mk3s. Each power car would need a generator or converter for the ETS, plus some kit to allow the traction controls to be transmitted along the cables already provided for use with 91s. As the latter are probably low voltage electrical signals it may just be a case of a clever plug and socket rather than needing any software. Both of those would fit in the former guard's compartment of the power car while still leaving space for a couple of bikes. A guard's office could be created by eliminating the buffet counter (EMT use trolleys except at weekends) or walling off the last window bay of the end coach.

But my money would still be on a derogation to keep the slam doors for a couple more years.

 

[HSTEd]

How big are the luggage compartments on HST power cars?
You could either fit a chiltern-esque ETS generator in that space or you could simply fit a converter that produces the ~1000v DC required for loco hauled stock from the provided train supply.
It doesn't even have to be isolated so it could be really crude if you needed it to be cheap.
After all loco hauled trains are designed to tolerate really really mucky power on their train supply systems, the specification was written to allow use of DC generators with commutators after all.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

How big are the luggage compartments on HST power cars?
You could either fit a chiltern-esque ETS generator in that space or you could simply fit a converter that produces the ~1000v DC required for loco hauled stock from the provided train supply.
It doesn't even have to be isolated so it could be really crude if you needed it to be cheap.
After all loco hauled trains are designed to tolerate really really mucky power on their train supply systems, the specification was written to allow use of DC generators with commutators after all.

That's the easy bit (plus ballasting the nose of an HST to counter the additional weight on the rear bogies, if necessary) but that plus the Mark 4 coaches increase the track access charges.

If they need to stay for months (anything upto 2 years) then derogate and offer up the money saved for more step free access, better lighting and other station accessibility improvements.

If it's years, then Mark 3 coaches with Chiltern modifications are the cheaper option, given the track access charge penalty of using Mark 4 stock over Mark 3 stock.

 

[Emblematic]

That's the easy bit (plus ballasting the nose of an HST to counter the additional weight on the rear bogies, if necessary) but that plus the Mark 4 coaches increase the track access charges.

If they need to stay for months (anything upto 2 years) then derogate and offer up the money saved for more step free access, better lighting and other station accessibility improvements.

If it's years, then Mark 3 coaches with Chiltern modifications are the cheaper option, given the track access charge penalty of using Mark 4 stock over Mark 3 stock.

Excuse the fag-packet calculation, but the Mk4 track access charge, whilst 70% more than Mk3, is only about 4 1/2p more per vehicle mile. Taking an annual mileage estimate from the Class 43 thread of 250k, that comes out to under £12k per vehicle per year. It strikes me that you would need to run Mk3s for many years - probably a decade or more - before you recovered the cost of modifications in track access charge savings. That would need the Mk3s to continue in use beyond electrification; unlike the Mk4s, substituting diesel haulage with electric isn't straightforward on a HST set.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Excuse the fag-packet calculation, but the Mk4 track access charge, whilst 70% more than Mk3, is only about 4 1/2p more per vehicle mile. Taking an annual mileage estimate from the Class 43 thread of 250k, that comes out to under £12k per vehicle per year. It strikes me that you would need to run Mk3s for many years - probably a decade or more - before you recovered the cost of modifications in track access charge savings. That would need the Mk3s to continue in use beyond electrification; unlike the Mk4s, substituting diesel haulage with electric isn't straightforward on a HST set.

You also have the cost of modifying the Mark 4 stock to work with an HST power car (1000V to 415V ETS), or modifying an HST power car to work with the Mark 4 stock (415V to 1000V ETS) and the usual rewiring nonsense to deal with the HST MW jumpers and tweaking the interlocking.

 

[Emblematic]

You also have the cost of modifying the Mark 4 stock to work with an HST power car (1000V to 415V ETS), or modifying an HST power car to work with the Mark 4 stock (415V to 1000V ETS) and the usual rewiring nonsense to deal with the HST MW jumpers and tweaking the interlocking.

You do indeed, but only if you're looking at using the class 43s rather than, say, class 67s. As it's short-term until electric traction becomes possible, the cheapest and simplest option seems likeliest.

 

[HSTEd]

You do indeed, but only if you're looking at using the class 43s rather than, say, class 67s. As it's short-term until electric traction becomes possible, the cheapest and simplest option seems likeliest.

67s are fitted for AAR working and would have to be rebuilt for TDM, just like the HST power cars.
The difference being we actually have records of HSTs being fitted for TDM, so it is probably less problematic than a newbuild fit for the 67s.

Myself, I would love to see the 91s and Mark 4s carry on, and any non corroded to death Mark 3s available using any available equipment for many years yet, but there are not that many electrified routes available for them and no prospect of their being so.
If we had Swiss style electrification you could pension them to random Scottish railways with long journey times, but we don't.
Single HST power car with a DVT and 5 on the FNL for example.