Was the IC 225 project the success BR thought it would be

[YourMum666]

Since the early 1990s, the Intercity 225 has been working on the East Coast Mainline, coming to almost 34 years since it’s induction, was the 225 really the success BR thought it would be

 

[yorkie]

Given some are still in service now, I'd say so!

They enabled the timetable to be expanded and accelerated and my understanding is that the fleet was worked even harder than originally envisaged. The main difference being that originally it was thought they may work night trains, but that never happened, for a variety of reasons, but that's not relevant to the success of the project.

If anyone's not already seen it, this thread is worth a look:

[Documentary] The building of the Class 91

Stumbled across this on Youtube - thought some of you might find it interesting. It's around an hour long. Apologies if it's already been posted! Video is a documentary first aired by Channel 4 in February 1988 following the process of building the Class 91 locomotive from the perspective of...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[yorksrob]

They've provided a good service over all of that time.

It's also worth noting that demand for travel on the ECML has grown over that time, so they must have provided the right travelling environment for the market.

 

[30907]

Since the early 1990s, the Intercity 225 has been working on the East Coast Mainline, coming to almost 34 years since it’s induction, was the 225 really the success BR thought it would be

I agree with Yorkie - but what were BR's criteria for success? ISTR considerable issues with ride and reliabilty at the beginning, and of course they were designed with a tilt-compatible profile which was never used.

Then there was also the issue of what happened when the wires came down - not necessarily the fault of the loco of course - but I am aware that had an effect on subsequent rolling stock developments. @ChiefPlanner will correct me if I am wrong

 

[coppercapped]

Another question which cannot be answered as it stands. "Success" needs to be defined, is it that the train:

• met its design and construction budgets?
• met its maintenance cost budgets?
• met or exceeded its performance specifications?
• met or exceeded its reliability specifications?
• met or exceeded any other parameter deemed to be of importance?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Well they didn't get to 140 mph as intended, never used their freight role and weren't cascaded to the WCML as I believe was planned. But other than that, I think they have done very well.

 

[Helvellyn]

Well they didn't get to 140 mph as intended, never used their freight role and weren't cascaded to the WCML as I believe was planned. But other than that, I think they have done very well.

Sectorisation had evolved by the time they entered service so using flagship InterCity locos on freight by this time was a non-starter. Parcels traffic might have been an option (e.g. East Coast TPOs) whilst Sleeper services never returned to the ECML after being concentrated on Euston during electrification work.

The WCML plan wasn't to cascade ECML sets but rather to purchase 16 sets for Manchester/Liverpool services to eliminate most (all?) Mark 2F services and thus make the WCML services 110mph as standard (possibly 125 for the Mark 4s in limited places). InterCity was in competition with NSE for the funding to do this and the latter won - leading to the 41 365s split between Kent Coast and Great Northern services.

 

[randyrippley]

The WCML plan wasn't to cascade ECML sets but rather to purchase 16 sets for Manchester/Liverpool services to eliminate most (all?) Mark 2F services and thus make the WCML services 110mph as standard (possibly 125 for the Mark 4s in limited places). InterCity was in competition with NSE for the funding to do this and the latter won - leading to the 41 365s split between Kent Coast and Great Northern services.

Modern Railways once published what was said to be BR's InterCity cascade plan and clearly stated the intention was to move the IC225 stock (locos and coaches) to the WCML, the coaches on tilting bogies. As far as I can remember faster non-tilting stock would have replaced it on a significantly improved and resignalled ECML. Fairly certain the author of the article was Roger Ford
This would have been either before or just after the 91/mk4 sets entered service and clearly marked them as an ECML stopgap which would only reach their full potential with tilt on the WCML

 

[bramling]

Since the early 1990s, the Intercity 225 has been working on the East Coast Mainline, coming to almost 34 years since it’s induction, was the 225 really the success BR thought it would be

I'd say so. From the passenger point of view they were (and still are) comfortable to use, and the Mallard refurbishment ironed out most of the things they didn't quite get right first time round. Likewise operationally they clocked up heavy mileages on a daily basis for 30 years, and again after refurbishment settled down to work reasonably well. Whilst it can be said they never quite reached their full potential, that may well because the initial ambitions for them were a little too high.

This passenger would take one over an IET any time, so certainly from a personal point of view they were very much a success.

What has perhaps been less successful is the way much of the fleet has found itself scrapped after finishing ECML service. Some further life on secondary routes would have extracted a little more value out of the fleet.

 

[Snow1964]

Success is difficult to measure.

Yes, still being used, did job well
No, if look at the profiled carriages for tilt, 140mph not used, no subsequent batches built

Was it a better solution than fixed format train with multiple power cars or distributed power, probably not as subsequent builds preferred this, and the detachable locos hardly ever worked freight trains. So in some ways was wrong solution.

But at the time (1988) InterCity was still using many mk2 carriages behind class 47s and 85s on cross country routes, so if further batches had been built for WCML, might have had mark 3s on cross country, and not the sparsely seated voyagers.

 

[mike57]

What has perhaps been less successful is the way much of the fleet has found itself scrapped after finishing ECML service. Some further life on secondary routes would have extracted a little more value out of the fleet.

Would this have been more likely had BR survived or a national operator taken over rather than the current structure? BR did seem good at cascading rolling stock, but it feels like there is no incentive to use older stock with the current set-up.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well they didn't get to 140 mph as intended, never used their freight role and weren't cascaded to the WCML as I believe was planned. But other than that, I think they have done very well.

I think the class 91s were troublesome at various points in their lifetime, and needed a number of refurbishments and upgrades over the years to improve reliability.
The Mk4 coaches got a very good refurb at mid-life, but the initial design wasn't much liked, in standard at least (hard ride, cramped seats).
I'm never very clear about the "best of BR" tag for IC225 when the whole train was essentially a GEC product, with BREL (in the process of privatisation) as subcontracted builder of the 91s using GEC electrics.

 

[YourMum666]

I think the class 91s were troublesome at various points in their lifetime, and needed a number of refurbishments and upgrades over the years to improve reliability.
The Mk4 coaches got a very good refurb at mid-life, but the initial design wasn't much liked, in standard at least.
I'm never very clear about the "best of BR" tag for IC225 when the whole train was essentially a GEC product, with BREL (in the process of privatisation) as builder of the 91s using GEC electrics.

I agree with this, I feel like the IC225 was very troublesome, with the failure of the locos due to snow leaking into intakes during bad weather, suspension issues and the fact that they never lived up to the “225” name. IC225s ran 125 throughout their tenure, BR promised so much with the 91s. Out of the whole program none of the promises were delivered. 30+ years of service is very good - but they did not deliver as much as their predecessor the HST, which was the greatest loco BR ever made

 

[Helvellyn]

Modern Railways once published what was said to be BR's InterCity cascade plan and clearly stated the intention was to move the IC225 stock (locos and coaches) to the WCML, the coaches on tilting bogies. As far as I can remember faster non-tilting stock would have replaced it on a significantly improved and resignalled ECML. Fairly certain the author of the article was Roger Ford
This would have been either before or just after the 91/mk4 sets entered service and clearly marked them as an ECML stopgap which would only reach their full potential with tilt on the WCML

I was unaware of that. I'll assume it was before the first ones appeared in 1988 because I don't recall reading anything from that time (when I started taking a lot of interest). It makes sense because the IC225 was essentially a development of what APT-S (for Squadron) was envisioned to be.

Success is difficult to measure.

Yes, still being used, did job well
No, if look at the profiled carriages for tilt, 140mph not used, no subsequent batches built

Was it a better solution than fixed format train with multiple power cars or distributed power, probably not as subsequent builds preferred this, and the detachable locos hardly ever worked freight trains. So in some ways was wrong solution.

But at the time (1988) InterCity was still using many mk2 carriages behind class 47s and 85s on cross country routes, so if further batches had been built for WCML, might have had mark 3s on cross country, and not the sparsely seated voyagers.

By the early 1990s it was the IC250 project (Class 93 loco/Mk 5 stock) that would have seen Mark 3s cascaded to CrossCountry, with new Class 48 diesel locomotives and I presume re-use of the Mark 3B DVTs. Could probably have got approx 40 sets that way, with seven coaches mimicing CrossCountry HST formations, or more if you used a RFM and five TSOs (and all FOs rebuilt as TSOs). I never recall reading if any Mark 3s would have been cascaded to Anglia in such a plan to replace their Mark 2Fs.

 

[Taunton]

I'm a bit of an outlier reviewing this. For something opened in 1991 it seemed to take a generation, maybe 25 years, before there were any other electric services on the line. Just 31 trainsets, and north of Peterborough in the 300 miles to Edinburgh there might be at most 20 such trains circulating at any time. That doesn't really justify expenditure on electrifying 300 double track route miles. The trains had no provision to order more, and were not standard with anything elsewhere, so again for 25 years they were stuck with that, and had to progressively bring in more and more diesel IC125s, which had originally been the ones replaced, to keep things going, which is a real downside of ordering a custom type of rolling stock.

The huge amount of diesel working "under the wires", Cross-Country, Trans Pennine, locals, freight etc just wasted the infrastructure investment. And then, despite the wiring costs, someone felt they could economise on substation costs (only 20 trains in 300 miles, remember), so when additional electric services finally arrived they couldn't be run. Fortunately they were bi-modes, so more diesel under the wires.

Oh, and it was yet another example of narrow, tapered-in stock we all had to sit squished into for all this time because it needed to tilt - which of course it never did and was not even built for. So why the restricted body profile?

 

[APT618S]

Modern Railways once published what was said to be BR's InterCity cascade plan and clearly stated the intention was to move the IC225 stock (locos and coaches) to the WCML, the coaches on tilting bogies. As far as I can remember faster non-tilting stock would have replaced it on a significantly improved and resignalled ECML. Fairly certain the author of the article was Roger Ford
This would have been either before or just after the 91/mk4 sets entered service and clearly marked them as an ECML stopgap which would only reach their full potential with tilt on the WCML

I don't know how much it was speculation or if BR had serious plans but I seem to remember reading about the possibility of running direct trains from King's Cross to Euston via Newcastle, Edinburgh and Preston for which additional 91+MKIVs would be required. Less layover time in Scotland being more efficient.

 

[Taunton]

I was unaware of that. I'll assume it was before the first ones appeared in 1988 because I don't recall reading anything from that time (when I started taking a lot of interest). It makes sense because the IC225 was essentially a development of what APT-S (for Squadron) was envisioned to be.

Some of us will recall this Modern Railways cascade article, it was accompanied by a big full page slanted chart showing the cascades by time and different line, rather black, blocky and blotchy, not at all normal Ian Allan printing standard, and which I suspect had been taken from an internal BR document and put on the photocopier.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm a bit of an outlier reviewing this. For something opened in 1991 it seemed to take a generation, maybe 25 years, before there were any other electric services on the line. Just 31 trainsets, and north of Peterborough in the 300 miles to Edinburgh there might be at most 20 such trains circulating at any time. That doesn't really justify expenditure on electrifying 300 double track route miles. The trains had no provision to order more, and were not standard with anything elsewhere, so again for 25 years they were stuck with that, and had to progressively bring in more and more diesel IC125s, which had originally been the ones replaced, to keep things going, which is a real downside of ordering a custom type of rolling stock.

The huge amount of diesel working "under the wires", Cross-Country, Trans Pennine, locals, freight etc just wasted the infrastructure investment. And then, despite the wiring costs, someone felt they could economise on substation costs (only 20 trains in 300 miles, remember), so when additional electric services finally arrived they couldn't be run. Fortunately they were bi-modes, so more diesel under the wires.

Oh, and it was yet another example of narrow, tapered-in stock we all had to sit squished into for all this time because it needed to tilt - which of course it never did and was not even built for. So why the restricted body profile?

I assume you're talking about ECML electrification, however we had our White Rose Eurostar sets rather earlier than 25 years later.

 

[Taunton]

I assume you're talking about ECML electrification, however we had our White Rose Eurostar sets rather earlier than 25 years later.

OK, but just for a couple of years, they didn't last and got replaced by diesel HSTs.

 

[yorksrob]

OK, but just for a couple of years, they didn't last and got replaced by diesel HSTs.

Fair point. ECML should have been a starting point for wider electrification in the North.

 

[Snow1964]

Fair point. ECML should have been a starting point for wider electrification in the North.

When scheme was being done it was initially an isolated scheme.

Didn't connect with any electrified line, in Kings Cross area, but does now. Similarly didn't join to other electrification schemes at Cambridge, or Edinburgh, or Leeds either, unlike now. So has led to some wider schemes, but agree rather limited way.

 

[yorksrob]

When scheme was being done it was initially an isolated scheme.

Didn't connect with any electrified line, in Kings Cross area, but does now. Similarly didn't join to other electrification schemes at Cambridge, or Edinburgh, or Leeds either, unlike now. So has led to some wider schemes, but agree rather limited way.

I suppose we should remember as well that it enabled the electric commuter service between Leeds and Donny as well.

 

[43096]

When scheme was being done it was initially an isolated scheme.

Carstairs-Edinburgh went live around the same time as the main East Coast scheme. So it wasn't an isolated scheme for long, if at all.

 

[YourMum666]

I suppose we should remember as well that it enabled the electric commuter service between Leeds and Donny as well.

Also enabled electric services to skipton

Fair point. ECML should have been a starting point for wider electrification in the North.

IMO BR should’ve electrified the MML before the ECML, have wires run to leeds and in a later ECML electrification have the wires join up with the MML at Doncaster. There’s more justification having the midland mainline be electric over the east coast, especially because it covers more populated cities than the ECML. Then you can make a justification for the ECML being electrified. BR made a big mistake prioritising the east coast over the midlands

 

[yorksrob]

Also enabled electric services to skipton



IMO BR should’ve electrified the MML before the ECML, have wires run to leeds and in a later ECML electrification have the wires join up with the MML at Doncaster. There’s more justification having the midland mainline be electric over the east coast, especially because it covers more populated cities than the ECML. Then you can make a justification for the ECML being electrified. BR made a big mistake prioritising the east coast over the midlands

I think there are arguments either way, however I'd like to have seen TPE electrified. The heavy gradients and frequent services could have benefitted from it.

 

[YourMum666]

I think there are arguments either way, however I'd like to have seen TPE electrified. The heavy gradients and frequent services could have benefitted from it.

the Manchester - Leeds Corridor (should’ve also been done with the ECML i agree, would’ve been a good east-west coast mainline connection

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Christopher Garnett, unlamented CEO of GNER, even advocated removal of the OHLE between Newcastle and Edinburgh.

 

[YourMum666]

Christopher Garnett, unlamented CEO of GNER, even advocated removal of the OHLE between Newcastle and Edinburgh.

I just believe they electrified the east coast way too early

 

[Ken H]

I agree with Yorkie - but what were BR's criteria for success? ISTR considerable issues with ride and reliabilty at the beginning, and of course they were designed with a tilt-compatible profile which was never used.

Then there was also the issue of what happened when the wires came down - not necessarily the fault of the loco of course - but I am aware that had an effect on subsequent rolling stock developments. @ChiefPlanner will correct me if I am wrong

They coaches were designed for 250kmh. Running them at 200 kmh meant they were not running at design speed so the ride was a big rough. Maybe designing them for 200kmh would have been a better spec.
A 200kmh loco would have been simpler/cheaper. Would it have needed the body mounted traction motors, for example?

 

[YorksLad12]

Also enabled electric services to skipton

Not exactly. The plan was to electrify while the teams were in the Leeds area (1988) as it would be cheaper to do as a follow-on project. It took so long to make the happen (I'm not sure why) that the electrification teams had left the Leeds area, so it cost more than intended as the teams had to be reconstituted (1994).