YourMum666
Member
how far were they initially planning to go
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Was the IC 225 project the success BR thought it would be
- Thread starter YourMum666
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Do you think it was meant to be a serious suggestion?
I always thought it was more of a criticism of the poor reliability of the overhead equipment.
Well, another half-dozen would be south of Peterborough to give the punters through trains from London
Class 91s (once reliable) operated virtually all the captive diagrams - I recall there being one Edinburgh-London HST but that was the exception.
Can't remember when the 110mph Leeds services started though.
Privatisation didn't exactly help - GNER claimed they were going to convert redundant Mk3 sleepers but kept kicking the ball down the road....
tbtc
Veteran Member
Tricky one
If the criteria for success include “lasting in service longer than expected” And “passenger numbers went up during their operation” Then they were a success… But then the same could be said about 142s, so maybe that’s not a great benchmark!
The problem with the 91s was that they were probably introduced on the ECML with the expectation that by mid-life they could be cascade onto services we now treat as TPE/ XC/ MML (or London-Hull etc), but the government hadn’t electrified these so there was no obvious home (esp with ex-WCML locos on Norwich-London trains), meaning the 91s stayed on frontline ECML services beyond their prime
I don’t blame privatisation for this, I think that it’s have been perfectly reasonable to privatise the operation of trains (and even the Railtrack side) but with the government taking strategic decisions about long term projects like electrification.
But the enthusiasm for electrification we saw in the 1980s wasn’t maintained , leaving a number of key lines untouched, and even a lot of simple infills/ extensions undone (there was money to do the ECML to North Berwick but not busy line from Sunderland to the Metro Centre?)
That left us with “flagship” trains designed for a particular purpose that struggled in later life as they were no longer high enough quality for their A-list role but there was nowhere suitable to cascade then to. Thankfully, lessons were learned and we’d never do that again… apart from the 460s… And the 185s… and various other classes unsuited for much beyond their first role (and buses like the ftr!)… That’s why I’m wary of some bespoke traction since it can struggle in later life once deposed from its original role, at least the plan is for Crossrail and Thameslink to use their custom-built EMUs for a “whole life”
(I’m mentioning “Government” since you can argue that Major and Blair are equally culpable, I’m testing not to make this party political)
If the criteria for success include “lasting in service longer than expected” And “passenger numbers went up during their operation” Then they were a success… But then the same could be said about 142s, so maybe that’s not a great benchmark!
The problem with the 91s was that they were probably introduced on the ECML with the expectation that by mid-life they could be cascade onto services we now treat as TPE/ XC/ MML (or London-Hull etc), but the government hadn’t electrified these so there was no obvious home (esp with ex-WCML locos on Norwich-London trains), meaning the 91s stayed on frontline ECML services beyond their prime
I don’t blame privatisation for this, I think that it’s have been perfectly reasonable to privatise the operation of trains (and even the Railtrack side) but with the government taking strategic decisions about long term projects like electrification.
But the enthusiasm for electrification we saw in the 1980s wasn’t maintained , leaving a number of key lines untouched, and even a lot of simple infills/ extensions undone (there was money to do the ECML to North Berwick but not busy line from Sunderland to the Metro Centre?)
That left us with “flagship” trains designed for a particular purpose that struggled in later life as they were no longer high enough quality for their A-list role but there was nowhere suitable to cascade then to. Thankfully, lessons were learned and we’d never do that again… apart from the 460s… And the 185s… and various other classes unsuited for much beyond their first role (and buses like the ftr!)… That’s why I’m wary of some bespoke traction since it can struggle in later life once deposed from its original role, at least the plan is for Crossrail and Thameslink to use their custom-built EMUs for a “whole life”
(I’m mentioning “Government” since you can argue that Major and Blair are equally culpable, I’m testing not to make this party political)
bramling
Veteran Member
The only thing I’d say, whilst agreeing with the general point, is that I’m not sure the 225s were ever past their prime, certainly as far as the end-user was concerned. Indeed it could be said that the 2000-2020 period was very much their prime, as many of the original gremlins had been refurbished or engineered out by that point and they settled down to delivering a pretty good passenger experience.
It’s also worth remembering the fleet was increasingly stretched due to the general increase in service provision, not helped by the loss of vehicles in the Hatfield and Heck accidents (neither of which were down to the trains, it should be added).
To be honest from a passenger point of view I’m not at all convinced an IET adds much value to the experience at all. Even being charitable they are very average. Operationally they do bring a few benefits of course.
YorksLad12
Established Member
I think it was always the Leeds/Bradford to Skipton/Ilkley routes as they're fairly self contained, and Bradford & Skipton were peak extensions to the main service, so the economics were favourable... just the execution of the plan that was off. Nothing strange such as Leeds-Horsforth-Harrogate-Knaresborough-York!
Perhaps the difference is that the 225's have never been at the point of not being high enough quality for their A-list role (whereas the 142's were never suitable for their D-list role to begin with).
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
I don't think you can blame the train design for not running above 125mph.
That was down to infrastructure and signalling policy on the ECML which as we know was never suitable for 140mph.
225s did get to Glasgow Central after Edinburgh-Carstairs got wired, and there is still one of those a day.
And wasn't there a run to/from Helensburgh once via Queen St LL?
A few will live on with TfW hauled by 67s, though the combination has not got through the reliability "bathtub curve" yet.
That was down to infrastructure and signalling policy on the ECML which as we know was never suitable for 140mph.
225s did get to Glasgow Central after Edinburgh-Carstairs got wired, and there is still one of those a day.
And wasn't there a run to/from Helensburgh once via Queen St LL?
A few will live on with TfW hauled by 67s, though the combination has not got through the reliability "bathtub curve" yet.
YourMum666
Member
passenger numbers have increased since IET introduction
BR shot themselves in the foot by not electrifying the ECML for 140mph running in mind
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
And you can fit nice seats in anything. The original Mk4 seats were awful (the whole interior was very much on the cheap), and the Mallard refurbs weren't great either - it was a hard single piece cushion which had a base sloping the wrong way, the wretched things gave me backache. It was only the Virgin Trains East Coast refurb that fixed that issue by fitting a softer two-piece cushion. Plus Mk4s ride like a cart even given that IETs are hardly smooth themselves.
Is that us just being pickier than other countries? In mainland Europe, certainly until the more recent "Stadler for everything" trend which was mainly done to push DOO and level boarding it was the norm in a number of countries that regional services would just be formed of a couple of old IC coaches behind whatever loco happened to be spare.
It might be suboptimal, but there's not really anything saying you couldn't replace anything that's presently operated by the likes of a couple of 158s with a short Mk4 formation, and many countries would.
YourMum666
Member
was it not the mallard refurb that fixed suspension
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
No, they still ride like they've derailed at times. If they were worse before that I hate to think how bad they must have been.
YourMum666
Member
I wonder what BR did with the mk3 rakes that they couldn’t do again with the electra
Wasn't that the BREL vs SIG bogie thing?
The mk3 use a BREL bogie (BT10?), but the mk4 doesn't, because a suitable one (T4?) wasn't ready or wasn't acceptable for 140mph use?
There's some detailed discussion of it here:
http://www.traintesting.com/ic225_6.htm
But I'm sure there's some other discussion somewhere else that I can't find...
The mk3 use a BREL bogie (BT10?), but the mk4 doesn't, because a suitable one (T4?) wasn't ready or wasn't acceptable for 140mph use?
There's some detailed discussion of it here:
http://www.traintesting.com/ic225_6.htm
But I'm sure there's some other discussion somewhere else that I can't find...
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Well, the government would never have authorised it without cab signalling, which wasn't feasible at the time.
They did approve the recent GW wiring for 140mph but it won't be possible until ETCS is fitted throughout.
YourMum666
Member
what about the flashing signals inbetween pboro and grantham, or were they there pre electrification
The flashing greens were installed as part of the trial of 140mph running, which ended up providing the data for the decision to require in-cab signalling above 125mph. I think it's slightly unfair to say BR failed to run at 140mph, when they tried and found the technology [they could afford at the time] lacking.
It's not like the WCML upgrade where the 140mph stuff got cancelled before it was even started - with the 390's likely to follow the 91's in never actually running at their design speed in regular service.
Would they have needed in cab signalling with the flashing greens?
And are the flashing greens still there?
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
That would have been for the BR and safety people to decide, and the answer would have been "yes".
There was a big move to ATP at the time (the GW and Chiltern versions were trials), and I don't think the flashing greens* did that.
The ECML has never had ATP fitted, relying eventually on TPWS and its speed limitations.
There's also a difference between a short stretch of flashing greens for a test, and equipping the whole line or major sections of it.
Then there's whether you really want to run at 140mph with the reduced capacity that entails for slower trains.
I believe SNCF ran TGVs on parts of Tours-Bordeaux at 225km/h with lineside signalling until recently, but the new LGV bypasses all that.
*flashing signals are awkward where they are repeatedly masked on curves by obstacles like gantries and OHLE stanchions.
Last edited:
YourMum666
Member
why not build in cab signalling into the locos, like the APT, it had in cab signalling/ speed limits
Because there was no budget to do so. They were hoping that the flashing greens would negate the need for in-cab signalling, but on review of the experiment, found it wasn't good enough.
Besides, the on board equipment is only a small proportion of the cost of getting in-cab signalling to work.
Fair point. I imagine the cost of upgrading all the signals would probably be a similar price to all the balises needed for in cab signalling.
I think so, they were in 2020.
Last edited:
YourMum666
Member
but wasn’t BR going to upgrade the signals anyways? To prevent this from going off topic too much, in my opinion the 91s did serve their years well, but they didn’t do what BR intended for them to do, they didn’t live up to the 225 title, hopefully the azumas get 140 on the ECML
To be fair a couple of 800’s have made it to 140
YourMum666
Member
on the east coast?To be fair a couple of 800’s have made it to 140
Yes there was an LNER and a TPE that both managed it. A software update has limited them to 125 now.
YourMum666
Member
hopefully in the lifetime of azumas we see 140 on the ECML, because the ECML has the best route terrain for high speed trains (225km/hr+)
DanNCL
Established Member
They certainly don’t get anywhere near as much recognition as the A4s, Deltics or HSTs, but arguably they’re as significant as the A4s and more significant to the ECML than both the Deltics and the HSTs. The 225s ran the majority of core long distance services on the ECML for 30 years with (once the initial teething troubles were resolved) relatively little fuss and some are still going strong now. As the flagship fleet on the ECML they are the longest serving - others had more years in service on the ECML but none were the flagship fleet for anywhere near as long as the 225s were.
For total longevity in ECML long distance service the 225s are currently third, behind the A3s and the HSTs. If the 225s make it to 2027 in service as was recently speculated elsewhere they'll have matched the A3s. They'd need to make it to 2030 to match the HST, I don't think that'll happen but never say never!
Looking at 225 operations today, they might not be the flagship fleet on the ECML anymore but they remain popular with both staff and passengers. Sometimes you even see 'normals' stop to take photos of the 91s at the buffer stops at Leeds P6, especially with 91110 and 111 but to some extent with all of them.
There’s a very good legacy left by the 225s. Even if nothing like them has been built for the UK since, they proved that 225kmh loco hauled sets were viable. Though not officially cited as such, the 225s influenced the design of the Austrian Railjets which are themselves successful record breakers like the 225s, and the Railjets have gone on to achieve some of what the 225s were intended to achieve but didn't, such as locomotives coming off high speed coaching sets in the evening and running freight overnight.
To answer the question in the thread title, whilst the 225s might not have achieved everything BR set out for them to achieve they have been a success. They've achieved some things beyond what was ever envisaged for them by BR too - I doubt BR ever expected them to run to Stirling or Skipton!
For total longevity in ECML long distance service the 225s are currently third, behind the A3s and the HSTs. If the 225s make it to 2027 in service as was recently speculated elsewhere they'll have matched the A3s. They'd need to make it to 2030 to match the HST, I don't think that'll happen but never say never!
Looking at 225 operations today, they might not be the flagship fleet on the ECML anymore but they remain popular with both staff and passengers. Sometimes you even see 'normals' stop to take photos of the 91s at the buffer stops at Leeds P6, especially with 91110 and 111 but to some extent with all of them.
There’s a very good legacy left by the 225s. Even if nothing like them has been built for the UK since, they proved that 225kmh loco hauled sets were viable. Though not officially cited as such, the 225s influenced the design of the Austrian Railjets which are themselves successful record breakers like the 225s, and the Railjets have gone on to achieve some of what the 225s were intended to achieve but didn't, such as locomotives coming off high speed coaching sets in the evening and running freight overnight.
To answer the question in the thread title, whilst the 225s might not have achieved everything BR set out for them to achieve they have been a success. They've achieved some things beyond what was ever envisaged for them by BR too - I doubt BR ever expected them to run to Stirling or Skipton!
Fleetmaster
Member
Talking ten years to reach their prime. Never becoming as iconic or well remembered as the HST*. Becoming trapped by their inflexibility, limited by their number, but with their USP never realised. Then being the face of Top Link privatisation anyway, and then symbolic of it's inevitable failure to hasten a new golden age (even as the Itlian built successors to the APT did just that over the road).
Suffering ugly repaint after ugly repaint in their eventual prime, and finally being partly replaced by HSTs. And thereafter by technology the 225 designers would see as exceedingly unambtious, even though in their latter days they were running on government owned metals and run by government owned drivers....
...I think it all adds up to a very depressed BR Head of IC225 Project.
* that in particular has got to really annoy BR people, since that was in essence a product of failure of the APT (admittedly not a BR design but definitely a BR flagship just like 225) while the HST was an unambitious stop gap that became quite literally a roaring success and could have even prevented privatisation.
Suffering ugly repaint after ugly repaint in their eventual prime, and finally being partly replaced by HSTs. And thereafter by technology the 225 designers would see as exceedingly unambtious, even though in their latter days they were running on government owned metals and run by government owned drivers....
...I think it all adds up to a very depressed BR Head of IC225 Project.
* that in particular has got to really annoy BR people, since that was in essence a product of failure of the APT (admittedly not a BR design but definitely a BR flagship just like 225) while the HST was an unambitious stop gap that became quite literally a roaring success and could have even prevented privatisation.
- Status