Will East Midlands Trains' Meridians and HST's be replaced when the franchise is renewed?

[SPADTrap]

Does it need to be new (other than the fact that new stock is the easiest way to the DfT's heart) - Some of those off lease 379s would be perfectly sufficient, especially if they can be 110mph modded

I'd imagine the 379s will be elsewhere by the time the electrification to Corby is completed, wouldn't they? I hope so anyway!

 

[Domh245]

I'd imagine the 379s will be elsewhere by the time the electrification to Corby is completed, wouldn't they? I hope so anyway!

I can't really see many places for them to go, especially given the tendencies of new franchises to simply lease new stock. That said, they don't come off lease until August 2020, whilst the electrification is supposed to be finished by December 2019 - so that probably puts the nail in that coffin!

 

[RichmondCommu]

As per usual people seem to think that transport policy is based on the desire to stop or turn back the clock! HSTs will most likely be scrapped soon, plug doors are much better than slam doors and the MML will change enormously in the next 16 years!

As a regular user of the MML, between Nottingham / Derby and London and St Pancras I think the route will see very few changes in the next 16 years. HS2 will make very little difference to Nottingham and Derby and I can't see how journey times will be improved on what we have now. The Conservatives have ruled out electrification and I suspect a Labour government would stick with the same policy.

 

[Intercity Exec]

The 800 series are the only contenders to run bi mode services on the MML, there is no chance of a manufacturer designing a brand new design for a small order. The timing targets where never viable once electrification was cancelled north of Kettering therefore compromises will have to be made. Its a question of how many stops will be removed and by how much the targets will be missed. I would guess that the bi modes will have the upgrated 802 engines (940hp) and one extra diesel engine per set. There is limited 125mph running north of Kettering therefore removing all stops south of Kettering and upgrading the wires should be enough to provide adequate journey times.

I don't see the 800 series as the only contender for MML bimodal services post electrification. You say that there is no chance of a manufacturer designing a brand new design for a small order so how do you explain the 168s (5 4car units initially), 175s and 180s (11 2car, 16 3car and 14 5car), 332s and 333s (25 4car and 5 5car), 360s (21 4car and 5 5car) and most relevant of all, 395s (29 6car). Of course, in the case of 168s, follow on orders came for further 168s, 170s, 171s and similar design 172s, 357s, 375s, 376s, 377s, 378s, 379s. 395 design was adapted into the 800 series but again, the initial order was small. Further to this, manufacturers don't wait for a TOC to approach them with a proposition and go into a design consultation with a blank sheet of paper, they are constantly evolving. Any major manufacturer has CAD designs for a number of different length vehicles and anticipated top service speed and with a little of bit of work fairly quickly put a design into production, other things like engine and electrical systems are generally already designed and depending on how much is being proposed to spend simply made to match demanded spec. EMT will issue a tender document for probably somewhere between (guesstimate!) 25 and 50 units depending on what lengths of units are selected stating various requirements. If Hitachi offer the 802 it will be thrown out as it will not meet the 125mph diesel specification and another bidding company will win the order - even if your concept of 940hp engines and an additional engine to try to force this capability (which i struggle to see where it will be located due to electrical equipment on both end vehicles) is attempted. Let us consider the 800 series a little closer. The 800 was heavily criticised for being under powered on diesel utilising 750hp of the 940hp available from the MTU engine, so why wasn't the power increased on these trains? I think the answer here lies with the engine itself. Rail application of diesel is not ideal, too much time idling and long bursts on full power and plenty of re-cycling the engine and the demands of the government on the specification for availability means the sets HAVE to work to high availability, therefore, as with most rail applications engines are detuned to build in reliability and it would appear 750hp was all that would meet such demands. The 802 is a follow on order, not of the government IEP order and as such there is more room for manoeuvre. Strong and fairly reliable rumour suggests MTU were not happy with the original proposition of utilising 900hp from the engines for rail use, and less so when the full 940hp was decided upon (the rumours also suggest the warranty package is somewhat downgraded) but Hitachi wanted the order, so slightly forced the design and must avoid the embarrassing situation of making a train slower than its predecessor (on diesel). This is a bit of a gamble and I wouldn't be surprised if engines are detuned fairly soon after they start regularly running up and down the hills of the southwest. By then it is too late for anyone to complain as the trains are in traffic. I wouldn't write off Stadler as they are known as a rolling stock designer keen to access the market in the UK and who produce good bespoke solutions even for relatively small orders. Any finished design wouldnt be a waste as the developments feed the future as with all manufacturers. Further to that, Bombardier, Alstom and Siemens would probably propose a design and other newcomers to the UK market would jump at an opportunity to prove their worth. Lastly, your statement that suggests line speeds north of Kettering aren't important is disappointing, the railway needs to develop further not go backwards, a train needs to be made to perform as required, not adjust the requirement to suit the rolling stock type you prefer (you don't work for Hitachi do you?!)

 

[NotATrainspott]

I don't see the 800 series as the only contender for MML bimodal services post electrification.

...

While other manufacturers have full rights to propose competing designs, it seems highly unlikely that anyone other than Hitachi will be that interested. Bombardier and CAF have plenty of work on the order books through 2021. Siemens and Alstom don't depend on British orders, and Alstom have said that they're now interested primarily in alternative self-powered technology like hydrogen. Hitachi will be churning out several 80x trains a week across three production plants in 2019 but the numbers drop off significantly after that, so they're in the best position to tag on an order for minimal cost.

You bring up MTU but I think you've missed something. Hitachi may not be unique in being unable to deliver a 125mph EDMU with Voyager performance. There are three main constraints on the design - be able to run as an EMU in future once wires are available wholly or in part, have more seats than the current trains, and be able to match current train performance. Delivering two of those three is easy: dispense with the first one and you're left with the Meridians, basically, or an AT300 variant with underfloor engines and no pantograph in the driving vehicles. Stadler's solution would be to fit engine modules, but these would have to take up valuable platform space. This is perfectly acceptable for rail routes where trains can still be made longer but given that the platforms at St Pancras are only 260m long there's no space left to spare. The only way it might be possible to solve all three is if MTU or other engine manufacturers can rustle up an even higher-performance version of their engine, but if they could do that, it would be just as available to Hitachi as any other manufacturer. Hitachi's advantages in manufacturing logistics and fleet commonality would still keep them ahead in the race.

 

[Mordac]

You shouldn't need a diesel engine to get to Corby! That said, I don't see why you would necessarily want an AT300 style train for those services, a slightly better specced commuter EMU should be more than enough.

The earlier post is specifically about Corby EMUs though?

Oops, that'll teach me to read things more carefully.

Nothing to see here, carry on!

 

[JamesT]

If Hitachi offer the 802 it will be thrown out as it will not meet the 125mph diesel specification and another bidding company will win the order - even if your concept of 940hp engines and an additional engine to try to force this capability (which i struggle to see where it will be located due to electrical equipment on both end vehicles) is attempted.

Although this may be true for the 5-car units, isn't there more scope for additional engines on the 9-car versions? AIUI there are two trailer cars in the middle of those with no engine. A 9-car unit with 7 engines ought to go like stink.

The follow-up question is then if MML services need the portion working 2x5 provides over a single longer consist?

 

[mallard]

The follow-up question is then if MML services need the portion working 2x5 provides over a single longer consist?

Is there any portion working currently except for the few services that split/join at Kettering (one portion Corby, another Nottingham/Sheffield)?

Since the Corby services are highly likely to be pure EMUs with no compatibility with the diesel/bi-mode InterCity stock, there doesn't seem to be much case for in-service joining/splitting in future. Re-formaiton of services at termini is a different matter however, although I'd guess that the extra running costs of "unecissarily" long trains would be mostly offset by nearly-half the route being wired.

 

[Roast Veg]

It's not just about running costs - lack of platform space at STP means that the only way to run trains at the required morning/evening frequency is to run two short 222s into the same platform behind each other, or have them depart in the reverse fashion. Unless the turn around times could be slashed in the absence of the HSTs to compensate (possible but unlikely, as there's still cleaning to be done) then there will still need to be divisible units.

 

[ashworth]

Just a thought...

Would portion running work on the MML with splitting and joining at Leicester or even East Midlands Parkway (that would provide a purpose for EMP!). 2x5 trains running from St. Pancras with one portion for Derby/Sheffield and the other for Nottingham. With trains of a combined capacity of 10 cars out of St. Pancras would it require more than 3tph with at least one of these running non stop to Leicester. That would mean 3 tph to Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield until HS2 opens. Although 3tph would be a reduction in frequency for Leicester, it would provide an increase in frequency for Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield with no loss of overall capacity over the current mix of lengths of trains.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the problem here is that the peaks require full-length trains on most workings, and a concept that works in the off-peak but not in the peak doesn't really solve the problem. They get round the St Pancras platform occupancy issue in the morning peak by getting rid of trains empty to Cricklewood where they stay until the reverse process in the evening.

Shortening the dwell time of the Nottingham HST as I suggested above would free a platform for about 30min every hour in the off-peak, which ought to be enough to accommodate a second Corby train. More difficult in the peaks, as the Cricklewood ECS has to fight its way across the slow lines. Perhaps they should be thinking of a few sidings on the "fast" side?

 

[Intercity Exec]

I have a few things to add to the previous few points, linking to each will be confusing so I'm just posting fresh. Firstly it is clear that there is compromise to be made here, one way or the other. The 802 doesn't have the power in its current guise, extra engines on the trailers of a 9 car may bring 125mph although the small question mark I have over reliability still stands. On voyagers running in 9 car formation heat from each engine seems to get carried along the train and when one engine derates others follow, normally behind the overheated one first, I guess the Meridians are the same, but maybe MTU can combat this. The Stadler proposition as described would give 125mph diesel but the compromise here is precious space, although this is less than what is lost for an HST as the diesel modules are comparatively small. Full length trains on all Nottingham/Sheffield departures though will quite strongly increase capacity. I guess it depends what the priorities are when it is time to order. Secondly, regarding split units I would hope that if full length units are chosen that is not at the expense of Melton Mowbray or Oakham as it would be wrong to take their direct services away just for convenience on the mainline. This is also the case for Lincoln so maybe a mixed fleet is the solution and even some other destinations could be included. Thirdly, regarding splitting at EMP, of course this would be possible, however, time taken to do this and the complexities involved mean that splitting in service has always been kept to a minimum in this country, however if it is felt that the benefits out weigh the costs then it should surely be considered. As said earlier, compromise it necessary at least somewhere so nothing should be taken off the table. Fourthly, despite the quoted 260m platform length at St Pancras (I have no figure for this to quote myself), it must be remembered that 2 metres is needed at the stop blocks and signal sighting at the country end which eats some of this space. As far as I am aware the class 700 12 cars are rather a tight squeeze when they run in and they are 243m long so if Hitachi 800 series is used, only 9 car could be permitted(234m), splitting stock would have to be 4 and 5 car to form 9 cars

 

[Domh245]

The Stadler proposition as described would give 125mph diesel but the compromise here is precious space, although this is less than what is lost for an HST as the diesel modules are comparatively small

The rest of your post is all fairly sensible, but I'll raise a point about this. As is, there is no Bi-modal offering that is 125mph capable from Stadler. They have bi-modal units, they have 125mph units, but they haven't yet created one that is both. I've no doubt that given enough money they would happily build a FLIRT200 with engine modules, but we can't take it for granted that it would do 125mph on Diesel, or at least do it any better than Hitachi's offerings.

 

[Intercity Exec]

The rest of your post is all fairly sensible, but I'll raise a point about this. As is, there is no Bi-modal offering that is 125mph capable from Stadler. They have bi-modal units, they have 125mph units, but they haven't yet created one that is both. I've no doubt that given enough money they would happily build a FLIRT200 with engine modules, but we can't take it for granted that it would do 125mph on Diesel, or at least do it any better than Hitachi's offerings.

Fair point, I was supposing that it would be 125mph capable to compete, I should have been clearer. The general rumour is that diesel modules would be made up of CAT 175-16 engines like in a class 68 which are said to be 125mph capable although the class 68 is obviously 100mph limited. Like you said it is not an official offering as yet so there are no direct figures available as it stands. 2x 3800hp engines should be more than enough as 2x 12VP185s (3500hp capable) detuned to 2250hp do the job well enough for HST.

 

[Chester1]

Splitting is not a necessity and certainly not if Meridians are retained. Its not unrealistic to expect 4 platforms to be able to handle peak time demand without splitting especially with Thameslink absorbing most commuter traffic.

I think an order of 12 x 9 car 802s (with 7 diesel engines of 940bhp) would be enough if 22 x 5 car Meridians are retained (the remaining 5 could be cascaded to CrossCountry). No tender for a big fleet, just the current opperator placing an order directly with Hitachi with the government writing the new trains into the next franchise. I don't work for Hitachi! I think everyone is overthinking the problems caused by electrification being cancelled north of Kettering. The order I suggested combined with some EMUs would get the job done.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Splitting is not a necessity and certainly not if Meridians are retained. Its not unrealistic to expect 4 platforms to be able to handle peak time demand without splitting especially with Thameslink absorbing most commuter traffic.

I think an order of 12 x 9 car 802s (with 7 diesel engines of 940bhp) would be enough if 22 x 5 car Meridians are retained (the remaining 5 could be cascaded to CrossCountry). No tender for a big fleet, just the current opperator placing an order directly with Hitachi with the government writing the new trains into the next franchise. I don't work for Hitachi! I think everyone is overthinking the problems caused by electrification being cancelled north of Kettering. The order I suggested combined with some EMUs would get the job done.

That is a sensible suggestion. 9-car 802s with 7 powered intermediate vehicles could replace the HSTs and in the meantime before there is sufficient electrification, the 222s can continue to run. If the AT300s are like that, they'll be formed of entirely standard carriages which can then be re-arranged and/or have engines removed. If Hitachi had to develop a driving vehicle fitted with a diesel engine and no transformer, it would create a non-standard vehicle type which might find a hard time finding a use later on in life.

 

[Class313:)]

can any bi-mode work 125mph on diesel mode? i dont think 800s/802s can...
*edit* ok they definetly cant. Top speed of an 800 on diesel is 100mph

 

[Agent_Squash]

can any bi-mode work 125mph on diesel mode? i dont think 800s/802s can...
*edit* ok they definetly cant. Top speed of an 800 on diesel is 100mph

The GWR 800s have been uprated to 940hp - can run up to about 115-120mph.

 

[superalbs]

The GWR 800s have been uprated to 940hp - can run up to about 115-120mph.

Or 127mph as mine managed.

 

[Class313:)]

The GWR 800s have been uprated to 940hp - can run up to about 115-120mph.

My bad - looking at old sources. 125mph 800s it is. Still need to upgrade OHLE to 125mph, and then justify the quite large extra cost of a bi-mode *edit* are the engines only 940hp? Good luck on the Inverness route pass on ECML....

 

[D365]

Good luck on the Inverness route pass on ECML....

That doesn’t need 125mph does it....

 

[Pete_uk]

A slightly more elegant mk5 from CAF, with, say, a class 68 at each end. Both locos can be connected so they both work at powering the train.

Yeah, a bit simple I know

 

[Class313:)]

That doesn’t need 125mph does it....

Yes but the gradients are rather steep there and theyll need to keep up with ScotRail HSTs. HSTs are 4,500hp

 

[MML]

I think the problem here is that the peaks require full-length trains on most workings, and a concept that works in the off-peak but not in the peak doesn't really solve the problem. They get round the St Pancras platform occupancy issue in the morning peak by getting rid of trains empty to Cricklewood where they stay until the reverse process in the evening.

Shortening the dwell time of the Nottingham HST as I suggested above would free a platform for about 30min every hour in the off-peak, which ought to be enough to accommodate a second Corby train. More difficult in the peaks, as the Cricklewood ECS has to fight its way across the slow lines. Perhaps they should be thinking of a few sidings on the "fast" side?

Indeed 2 or 3 sidings on the fast side of Cricklewood would be very useful for stabling EMT trains.
Benefits include not having to cross over onto the slow lines and more space in the existing sidings for stabling of Thameslink stock.

 

[whhistle]

<snip>

Don't mean to be rude but if you want anyone to read what you wrote, you need to split it up into paragraphs...

 

[Far north 37]

Yes but the gradients are rather steep there and theyll need to keep up with ScotRail HSTs. HSTs are 4,500hp

The current class 170s are just over 400hp so dont think it will be a major problem.

 

[mushroomchow]

I don't think anybody is seriously considering cascading the 222s away from EMT. They're far too important to the operations of the franchise, and there isn't a bi-mode train on the market (or likely to be for the foreseeable) that can match their performance away from the wires, let alone at a time when the next franchise is committing to an extra train each hour and a more intensive timetable. They also have the benefit with EMT of being maintained on the doorstep of the company that built them in Derby.

I mean, what are you going to replace them with? Everything coming off-lease from other TOCs is either comparably worse (Voyagers, Turbostars), facing similar RVAR issues (VTEC/GWR HSTs) or hamstrung by a lack of route availability on a franchise which, even after Corby, will be non-electrified for the most part.

I can't even see the HSTs having a suitable replacement by 2020 - there's going to have to be some sort of RVAR exemption for them. They'll probably be phased out in favour of a drip-feed of 80X units through the early 2020s - hopefully by then there'll be the capability to build a bi-mode unit with a diesel engine fit for the route, or battery tech with a suitable range, because the MML electrification can has seemingly been kicked a good 15-20 years down the line now - I doubt we'll see it until at least after HS2 Phase 2b is completed.

 

[43096]

I don't think anybody is seriously considering cascading the 222s away from EMT. They're far too important to the operations of the franchise, and there isn't a bi-mode train on the market (or likely to be for the foreseeable) that can match their performance away from the wires, let alone at a time when the next franchise is committing to an extra train each hour and a more intensive timetable. They also have the benefit with EMT of being maintained on the doorstep of the company that built them in Derby.

I mean, what are you going to replace them with? Everything coming off-lease from other TOCs is either comparably worse (Voyagers, Turbostars), facing similar RVAR issues (VTEC/GWR HSTs) or hamstrung by a lack of route availability on a franchise which, even after Corby, will be non-electrified for the most part.

I can't even see the HSTs having a suitable replacement by 2020 - there's going to have to be some sort of RVAR exemption for them. They'll probably be phased out in favour of a drip-feed of 80X units through the early 2020s - hopefully by then there'll be the capability to build a bi-mode unit with a diesel engine fit for the route, or battery tech with a suitable range, because the MML electrification can has seemingly been kicked a good 15-20 years down the line now - I doubt we'll see it until at least after HS2 Phase 2b is completed.

Batteries for EMT St. Pancras services beyond the wires? By 2020?

You are having a laugh. More chance of bionic duckweed being used...

 

[James James]

Would it be possible for an 125 mph unit to have wide doors at thirds? The fastest units I have seen them on have a limit of 110 mph, is this because of safety or cost?

The 200km/h capable Swiss double deck IC stock has wide doors at thirds - each entrance has a single wide door (i.e. enough for two people side by side). The new (and highly delayed) Bombardier RABe 502 has very similar doors, likewise to operate at 200km/h (although design speed on those is apparently 230km/h).

Whether or not those would be permitted in the UK might be a different matter.

 

[The Ham]

Given that the Government had made it known that they want bimodal trains on the MML I would guess that's what's going to happen.

I would go further and suggest that the ITT for XC will state that they can assume that they can use the 222's. [OFF TOPIC] I would, if I were XC reform then to be a mix of 4 and 7 coach units (I think that there's 1 or 2 units that would be 5 coaches) and run then as 7/8 coach trains (with the odd 9 coach train formed of 4+5 coach units). That would give a near stand alone fleet that didn't need to mix with the Voyagers and would allow most of the Voyagers to also run in pairs and give them a bit more down time to allow toilet tanks to be emptied and other cleaning. [\OFF TOPIC]

Given what others have said about potential underpower issue, the suggestion of 9 coach versions with all intermediate coaches being powered seams a good option.

Although I also think that the 5 coach versions probably aren't that far behind in power capability given that they have 60% of their coaches powered Vs 78% for a 9 coach with all intermediate coaches powered, and so there could still be some 5 coach working. However I would expect most to be the longer units.