Should more Mk5 coaches have been built instead of IETs?

[Lewis lamb62)]

(Not sure if this should be in the ‘speculative ideas’ thread so feel free to move)

So here’s something rather interesting which may start a debate.



Given the negative feedback both GWR and LNER have revived regarding their 80*s (mainly GWR) should we of gone with a fleet of MK5 coaches dragged by 125 capable locos to act as the county’s new intercity fleet?

Further from that should TOCs that haven’t yet placed orders (GC, EMT etc..) order MK5s?


Interested to see what you lot think

 

[Southsider]

(Not sure if this should be in the ‘speculative ideas’ thread so feel free to move)

So here’s something rather interesting which may start a debate.



Given the negative feedback both GWR and LNER have revived regarding their 80*s (mainly GWR) should we of gone with a fleet of MK5 coaches dragged by 125 capable locos to act as the county’s new intercity fleet?

Further from that should TOCs that haven’t yet placed orders (GC, EMT etc..) order MK5s?


Interested to see what you lot think

Should the thread title read ‘Should we have gone’ or am I misunderstanding something?

 

[hexagon789]

(Not sure if this should be in the ‘speculative ideas’ thread so feel free to move)

So here’s something rather interesting which may start a debate.



Given the negative feedback both GWR and LNER have revived regarding their 80*s (mainly GWR) should we of gone with a fleet of MK5 coaches dragged by 125 capable locos to act as the county’s new intercity fleet?

Further from that should TOCs that haven’t yet placed orders (GC, EMT etc..) order MK5s?


Interested to see what you lot think

Do you mean Mk5s like the Mk5a stock TPE have? If so they are only 22m vehicles, Mk3s are 23m and IETs 26m, so I think for a start you'd be lowering capacity.

 

[Lewis lamb62)]

Should the thread title read ‘Should we have gone’ or am I misunderstanding something?

Aye, late night mistake

 

[Bayum]

No. Where is the stock available to haul the MK5s? Would any hauling locomotive have been able to be built alongside the MK5s ready for testing, training and delivery? There isn’t anything wrong with the 800s as a design - it’s how they’ve been decorated and the interior fittings have been used. You could have MK5s decorated in the exact same way and we’d be saying - oh, would 800s have been better here?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The negative feedback is primarily centred around seating and interior decor. As this could be solved by replacing the seats and changing the colour of other things, I see no particular reason to have purchased a different train.

The only really negative thing I see is the lack of low floor, but nor are Mk5s.

 

[hexagon789]

The negative feedback is primarily centred around seating and interior decor. As this could be solved by replacing the seats and changing the colour of other things, I see no particular reason to have purchased a different train.

The only really negative thing I see is the lack of low floor, but nor are Mk5s.

I agree, in the case of the IET, it's not the train that's at fault it's the fitting-out.

Whereas Pacers, well...


Besides, the Mk5s are not really suited to intense long-distance 125mph operation with the capability to be upgraded later to 140mph, IETs are.

 

[507 001]

Let’s not forget that nobody has actually been on a mk5 set yet. Well, apart from those who use the sleeper and staff.

 

[GrimShady]

Apart from the garbage interior, IET may well turn out to be a very reliable unit. Having said that the LNER order should have been all EMU with locos to haul/push the stock beyond Edinburgh.

 

[Amaroussi]

Only the “ironing board” seats are the most pressing issue: the seats that are so hard that the train operating company might as well install vandal-resistant plastic seats that you see on the New York Subway.

 

[Clansman]

(Not sure if this should be in the ‘speculative ideas’ thread so feel free to move)

So here’s something rather interesting which may start a debate.



Given the negative feedback both GWR and LNER have revived regarding their 80*s (mainly GWR) should we of gone with a fleet of MK5 coaches dragged by 125 capable locos to act as the county’s new intercity fleet?

Further from that should TOCs that haven’t yet placed orders (GC, EMT etc..) order MK5s?


Interested to see what you lot think

May I ask what you think the "negative feedback" of the IETs predominantly are?

It'd be interesting to see if you base your argument on the IETs as the trains themselves, or the IETs as the interior fittings. If it's the latter, then it's easily conclusive that procuring Mk5s would have been uterly pointless as an alternative. If not, then the former really better be an argument of substance to prove credible.

 

[RLBH]

The negative feedback is primarily centred around seating and interior decor. As this could be solved by replacing the seats and changing the colour of other things, I see no particular reason to have purchased a different train.

The only really negative thing I see is the lack of low floor, but nor are Mk5s.

And just as much to the point, even if a LHCS solution had been chosen instead of IEP, it would have been specified by the same people. So the interiors would be pretty similar. In fact, a 9-coach IET has trailer vehicles, so that's pretty much what 'Mark 5' stock would look like. Yes, including the 26m vehicle length, and the interior specification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And just as much to the point, even if a LHCS solution had been chosen instead of IEP, it would have been specified by the same people. So the interiors would be pretty similar. In fact, a 9-coach IET has trailer vehicles, so that's pretty much what 'Mark 5' stock would look like. Yes, including the 26m vehicle length, and the interior specification.

And, indeed, the actual (CAF) Mk5 coaches have the same seats.

(Once again on the seats, though, there are two very different types of base cushion - if you've only ever sat on the ones with the flat cloth covering which are truly awful, the ones with the moquette have a different base cushion which is nowhere near as bad, not that that's really an accolade)

 

[VT 390]

Do we actually know what the seating is like in the MK5's yet (the Transpennine ones not Caledonian Sleeper), are the seats better then the IET ones or just as hard?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do we actually know what the seating is like in the MK5's yet (the Transpennine ones not Caledonian Sleeper), are the seats better then the IET ones or just as hard?

They are the same seats. I expect they will be like the newer version with moquette rather than the old version with flat cloth, even if they actually put flat cloth on them as TPE have on their other units.

 

[swt_passenger]

Aye, late night mistake

You can always edit your thread title, or just leave it as a constant reminder of one of the most regular “mistakes”. However it’s wrong in the text as well...

I believe the DFT’s first ideas for IEP rolling stock included carriages between power cars, the bimode would have had one electric and one diesel power car, and IIRC it would have been underpowered on both modes. I think Roger Ford of Modern Railways reckoned the originally planned bimode would have to use diesel under the wires.

Underfloor generating sets was a requirement to make bimodes work, and of course meant you could have two more coaches with seating accommodation, a significant increase over the dead space in existing high speed stock on the GW and EC.

 

[47271]

From what I hear from those who've been aboard the new CS stock, there's little to choose between that and IETs for smoothness and quiet.

In fact, given the person travelling was Scottish, the exact comparison that was made was with a 385. Which isn't great news for the new sleepers.

I concur with most of the above posts. If it wasn't for the terrible seats and wishy washy overlit ambience then IETs would be fine. I wouldn't go any further than fine, they don't exactly feel like the pinnacle of the last 40 years of railway vehicle development, which is what they really should be.

I don't want to reignite the debate that compares IET with HST, but bringing the sleeper into the discussion reminded me of a thought I had the other day. Mk3s have air suspension right? This makes the sleepers particularly smooth and quiet. Don't they fit air to anything nowadays, and if not why not, it's great? It seems like trains are getting rougher rather than smoother as the years go by.

 

[hexagon789]

Mk3s have air suspension right? This makes the sleepers particularly smooth and quiet. Don't they fit air to anything nowadays, and if not why not, it's great? It seems like trains are getting rougher rather than smoother as the years go by.

Mk3s do indeed have air secondary suspension, and plenty of modern trains do too including 385s and IETs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I concur with most of the above posts. If it wasn't for the terrible seats and wishy washy overlit ambience then IETs would be fine. I wouldn't go any further than fine, they don't exactly feel like the pinnacle of the last 40 years of railway vehicle development, which is what they really should be.

They would have been better (on GWR) with:
- Different seats. Everyone knows which I prefer, but near enough anything but what they did use would be good.
- A more advanced LED based lighting system - the ICE4 is using a coloured "mood lighting" system which would have been worth a go. Though to be fair the lights are not really any worse than a Class 350 and definitely better than a GWR HST. (Actually, the whole ambiance is a bit Class 350-like in a way).
- A nicer colour scheme, perhaps based on dark green rather than grey, like the Electrostars perhaps.

 

[47271]

Mk3s do indeed have air secondary suspension, and plenty of modern trains do too including 385s and IETs.

Interesting, you don't get that pleasant very slightly floaty cushioned feeling on newer stock that you get on mk3s. There's something that they used to do that isn't happening now, I'm sure of it! Maybe it's just me...

 

[RLBH]

Interesting, you don't get that pleasant very slightly floaty cushioned feeling on newer stock that you get on mk3s. There's something that they used to do that isn't happening now, I'm sure of it! Maybe it's just me...

I've a suspicion that setting suspension is a fairly subjective thing, so maybe that's purely a consequence of Steve who did the Mark 3s not working on the newer stock?

 

[hexagon789]

Interesting, you don't get that pleasant very slightly floaty cushioned feeling on newer stock that you get on mk3s. There's something that they used to do that isn't happening now, I'm sure of it! Maybe it's just me...

At a guess it could be the type of primary suspension or if Mk3s themselves are anything to go by - the dampeners used.

 

[ainsworth74]

Having said that the LNER order should have been all EMU with locos to haul/push the stock beyond Edinburgh.

And to Hull, Harrogate, Lincoln, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Huddersfield and when required around via Spalding, Askern, the Durham Coast, Tyne Valley, Castleford, Cambridge... Ends up being a fair few locos that!

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Yes-I think so. MK 5s could be the new MK 3s and MK 6s could be based on the MK 2 design. As for locomotive haulage, you could have-

Class 93 140-mph bo-bo loco (London to Edinburgh, Swansea, Bristol, Cross-Country etc)
Class 94 125 mph co-co mixed use loco (London to Oxford, Kings Lynn, Midland Mainline services etc, West Coast post HS2 services, London to Norwich)
Class 95- essentially a 94 but could run on third rail and be used on the Bournemouth to Manchester services.

 

[hexagon789]

Yes-I think so. MK 5s could be the new MK 3s and MK 6s could be based on the MK 2 design. As for locomotive haulage, you could have-

Class 93 140-mph bo-bo loco (London to Edinburgh, Swansea, Bristol, Cross-Country etc)
Class 94 125 mph co-co mixed use loco (London to Oxford, Kings Lynn, Midland Mainline services etc, West Coast post HS2 services, London to Norwich)
Class 95- essentially a 94 but could run on third rail and be used on the Bournemouth to Manchester services.

The 93 sounds like a 91 and the 94 like an 89!

 

[GrimShady]

And to Hull, Harrogate, Lincoln, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Huddersfield and when required around via Spalding, Askern, the Durham Coast, Tyne Valley, Castleford, Cambridge... Ends up being a fair few locos that!

Very true but what's the cost of a fleet of Thunderbirds Vs the number of installed underfloor engine's/development costs and Thunderbird 67s.

 

[PeterC]

To a layman the idea of having a standard passenger coach topped and tailed by motor / driving units does appear to the the "obvious" way to go. Build N identical sets of passenger cars and a mix of diesel, AC electric, DC electric and bi mode front end units as required.

 

[hexagon789]

To a layman the idea of having a standard passenger coach topped and tailed by motor / driving units does appear to the the "obvious" way to go. Build N identical sets of passenger cars and a mix of diesel, AC electric, DC electric and bi mode front end units as required.

The only downside is you lose seating capacity from having power cars and acceleration by only having motored wheelsets at the ends of the train.

 

[GrimShady]

The only downside is you lose seating capacity from having power cars and acceleration by only having motored wheelsets at the ends of the train.

Distributed traction could have been achieved by some creative thinking. Coach sets could have had traction motors every few coaches powered by connected power cars/ locos.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Distributed traction could have been achieved by some creative thinking. Coach sets could have had traction motors every few coaches powered by connected power cars/ locos.

Isn't that basically the Stadler model?