What will happen to the VTEC plans for retaining some MK4s?

[DanNCL]

I saw somewhere today that First group want to expand the number of services and have submitted an application for same.

Weren't they planning on using EMUs? It'd be nice if they do decide to use 91 hauled sets instead though!

 

[Rhydgaled]

The lack of power is a fairly major reason, but the real reason your plan will never work is cost. The way in which the 800s have been sourced means that even tweaking the engine software to get a little performance boost costs significant amounts of money, remarshalling them and switching them to a different line will cost about as much as ordering a new fleet in the first place, especially as you would need to start adding engines to previously unengined vehicles. By my estimates, there will be either 137 (or 167*) IEP vehicles with diesel engines on the east coast, the MML needs 9 trains to replace the HSTs like for like, each needing to be 2+7 to get near enough match the HST power to weigh ratio, so that is 63 of the coaches used up, and once the 65 coaches for the 9 car East Coast IETs have been accounted for you are left with either 9 (or 39) powered coaches to split between the various 801s, as well as some of ICEC 5 car 800s.

For the MML, I would suggest 12x 8-car units. That would be 24 driving vehicles and 72 intermediate coaches with diesel engines under the floor. The East Coast IEP fleet is, if I recall correctly, 42 class 801 and 23 class 800, with 10 of the latter being 5-car sets. Excluding the 9-car class 800s (which will be needed to replace the East Coast IC125 fleet), I make that... 72 diesel engines. So, there are enough diesel engines in the ECML fleet to do what I'm suggesting. If I'm right, that would leave the ECML fleet with 40 electric-only sets (21x 9-car and 19x 5-car being one possible set of configurations; but some 7-car sets instead of just 9-car and 5-car formations might be useful) plus the 13 nine-car bi-modes and a number of IC225s.

Sadly, your other point about the contractual arangements may well be true, although the Doncaster depot could probably still service MML class 800 sets. The other possible issue with my suggestion is whether the class 800/801 design allows for such extensive changes to the formation; but if there are no such technical hurdles I think it is a much better plan than scrapping electric trains (IC225s) and building more bi-modes.

Similarly, I remain unconvinced by the timings you propose - Bristol and Oxford remain indefinitely postponed, and I can't see a situation in which that electrification gets planned, designed, installed, and commissioned, before NR are able to upgrade the power supply for the Northern ECML

Bristol and Oxford, as far as I recall, were 'deferred' which I took to mean 'deferred to CP6' and planning and design were presumably underway when that annoucement was made. The sensible thing to do would appear to be to move onto wiring Bristol and Oxford once the non-deferred sections of the GWML project are finished. The ECML power supply upgrade has also slipped to CP6, and although it is likely to be earlier in CP6 than the electrification to Bristol and Oxford I think there were other ECML issues preventing the full timetable. So it might take until the end of CP6 to fully deliver the new ECML timetable, even if some enhancements are possible around the middle of the control period.

The MML is (regrettably) not going to be electrified any time soon, it needs new trains that can run to existing timings or better for the next 30-40 years

The next best thing to my suggestion I feel would be the mark 4 + class 43s + batteries proposal I read in a recent Modern Railways or, failing that, a small fleet of new bi-modes to replace the IC125s. The MML needs a new fleet to replace the Meridians like it needs reducing to a single track. Replacing the Meridians with new bi-modes risks leaving the route without wires even after all new cars are electric. The MML apparently had a stronger case for electrification than the GWML; it needs to happen. I assume we just cannot afford it right now.

I've just got a vision of a horrible Voyager/Meridian derivative coming out of Bombardiers factory!
I've never known such a badly designed train quite like the Voyager.

Is there anything actually wrong with the design of the train itself? I've not used either type much, but from my limited experience I think I'd rather Virign had ordered a 9-car EMU version of the Super Voyager instead of Pendolinos. The windows on the latter are puny. Some decent seats, a better interior layout (improve the window alignment and legroom) and, importantly, decent train lengths, would work wonders with the Voyagers I reckon. You'd need to electrify the MML to do it, but (assuming there are no significant technical hurdles) giving XC the class 222 fleet and scrapping some class 220 driving vehicles (putting the intermediate coaches into the 222s) would be a good start.

 

[ash39]

Lots of posts about a whole variety of things other than Mark IVs / Class 91s. Hey ho.

On topic: If they go off lease, the leasing company will only retain them if they think there is a short to medium term opportunity to get them earning money again. Otherwise, the cutting torch awaits. Conversely, if someone else takes them, LNER (or their successor) will have lost out and be short of stock. Otherwise, LNER will have to pay leasing costs to keep them sat in sidings, just in case they need them down the line (no pun intended).

The mk4's have had a high quality refurb in the last 18 months at considerable cost (£21m, but that figure includes the mk3's as well). I know this wasn't funded by the ROSCO, but I would be prepared to bet quite a lot of money that they won't be scrapped anytime soon.

There's a huge DMU shortage which won't be going away anytime soon. Even with the new DMU's & converted EMU's on order, these will be mainly replacing life-expired existing stock. Factor in a huge backlog of units needing PRM modifications & HST trailers needing power door conversions, and it's clear there will be a market for a short term fleet of diesel trains. The mk4's are fully PRM compliant and in great condition, ready to go. The main issue is what to haul them with. If I was senior at DB I'd be having conversations now with the owners of the mk4's & prospective operators about reactivating some of the stored 67's in preparation for this possibility.

As much as I would like to see the 91's continue on the ECML, the small fleet of retained sets never really made sense to me. Unfortunately, I think the 91's have a much bleaker forecast than the mk4's - I wouldn't be surprised to see one meet the gas axe before the end of the decade.

 

[gingertom]

As much as I would like to see the 91's continue on the ECML, the small fleet of retained sets never really made sense to me.

You're not suggesting the DfT hasn't ordered enough 800s? I mean, it's not like them to get their sums wrong.

I'm afraid I agree with you, a small batch of bi-modes that can manage 125mph comfortably on diesel will defer electrification for a very long time.

 

[Domh245]

For the MML, I would suggest 12x 8-car units. That would be 24 driving vehicles and 72 intermediate coaches with diesel engines under the floor. The East Coast IEP fleet is, if I recall correctly, 42 class 801 and 23 class 800, with 10 of the latter being 5-car sets. Excluding the 9-car class 800s (which will be needed to replace the East Coast IC125 fleet), I make that... 72 diesel engines. So, there are enough diesel engines in the ECML fleet to do what I'm suggesting. If I'm right, that would leave the ECML fleet with 40 electric-only sets (21x 9-car and 19x 5-car being one possible set of configurations; but some 7-car sets instead of just 9-car and 5-car formations might be useful) plus the 13 nine-car bi-modes and a number of IC225s.

Sadly, your other point about the contractual arangements may well be true, although the Doncaster depot could probably still service MML class 800 sets. The other possible issue with my suggestion is whether the class 800/801 design allows for such extensive changes to the formation; but if there are no such technical hurdles I think it is a much better plan than scrapping electric trains (IC225s) and building more bi-modes.

You have then used up all of the ICEC Diesel vehicles, leaving none for the 5 car units (for serving new destinations off the ECML), or for the 801s which are contractually obliged to have some means of propelling themselves should they be unable to move under the wires - another lovely expensive contract variation to stare at. Sure your plan does work, but only if you want to like for like replace the HSTs on the MML and East Coast, there is still a fundamental shortage of MTU fitted vehicles. Doncaster could still service the MML sets (after all, Neville Hill does their HSTs at the moment, requiring a few trains to and from Leeds every morning and afternoon) - but the contracts go well beyond maintenance.

They are, however, required under the contract to be easily modifiable in length/formation, so that is something that doesn't need worrying about.

Lastly, what is wrong with scrapping electric trains if (as has been said by a few different people) they are knackered.

Bristol and Oxford, as far as I recall, were 'deferred' which I took to mean 'deferred to CP6' and planning and design were presumably underway when that annoucement was made. The sensible thing to do would appear to be to move onto wiring Bristol and Oxford once the non-deferred sections of the GWML project are finished. The ECML power supply upgrade has also slipped to CP6, and although it is likely to be earlier in CP6 than the electrification to Bristol and Oxford I think there were other ECML issues preventing the full timetable. So it might take until the end of CP6 to fully deliver the new ECML timetable, even if some enhancements are possible around the middle of the control period.

Oxford and Bristol (and Thames Valley Branches) have been indefinitely deferred, not 'deferred to CP6', seemingly because both Bristol TM and Oxford stations are due for resignalling/rebuilding and so doing the electrification ahead of those is rather pointless. As far as I'm aware, neither of those things have yet made much progress, so I still suspect that we'll see all of the ECML infrastructure upgrades completed before we see the wires reaching Oxford and Bristol.

The next best thing to my suggestion I feel would be the mark 4 + class 43s + batteries proposal I read in a recent Modern Railways or, failing that, a small fleet of new bi-modes to replace the IC125s. The MML needs a new fleet to replace the Meridians like it needs reducing to a single track. Replacing the Meridians with new bi-modes risks leaving the route without wires even after all new cars are electric. The MML apparently had a stronger case for electrification than the GWML; it needs to happen. I assume we just cannot afford it right now.

Why should the MML get casts off? Every man and his dog across the country are getting new trains, so why shouldn't the MML. MK4s + HSTs are a more than acceptable stop gap should they be needed to tide over the period between PRM-TSI coming into force and the delivery of new stock, but why should the MML be lumbered with them for the forseeable?

The current Government have decided that the MML isn't being wires, and so the best of that situation has to be made in the meantime. You are right that the MML had (and still does have) a good business case, which was massaged to make it look less good, in order to justify dropping it - primarily because NR are spending so much on electrification that it is pretty unsettling for ministers, and I would love to see it electrified - but at least whilst the Conservatives are in power (or there is some sort of shift in thinking) it ain't happening. Replacing with bi-modes makes the best of a bad situation, it allows them to reduce emissions at the Southern end of the Route (where pollution is at it's worst), combined with a performance increase, whilst retaining through services. I would hope that by the time that all cars have become electric (2050 at the earliest I would think, the 2040 deadline is for cars solely powered by ICEs, for now), a shift has occured and the line is electrified (and the engines removed from the bi-modes to leave EMUs) or it has been relegated to a secondary route with the bulk of services provided by HS2.

 

[whhistle]

I think a dedicated tilting 125mph Bimode from Siemens or Stadler, is the way to go.

Why need tilting for the MML?
Stadler would be preferred though. Bored of seeing the same 8xx design all over the shop now.

Unless they use this Adventra design:

Maybe it's the livery design that gives it a bit of a different look.

 

[cactustwirly]

Why need tilting for the MML?
Stadler would be preferred though. Bored of seeing the same 8xx design all over the shop now.

So the trains can reach a higher speed round the tight corners between Bedford & Leicester, therefore reducing journey times.

 

[whhistle]

So the trains can reach a higher speed round the tight corners between Bedford & Leicester, therefore reducing journey times.

Needs more work than just the trains and I doubt they'll spend yet more money/time in the same area as they're currently working on, unless the current work is enabling tilt operation?

 

[mallard]

So the trains can reach a higher speed round the tight corners between Bedford & Leicester, therefore reducing journey times.

Yes, it wasn't just the proximity to the Derby RTC that resulted in the APT-E spending much of its time testing tilt along the MML. Although I wonder what design compromises might be required to create a bi-mode tilting train for the route; that's a lot of equipment to be carrying...

 

[gingertom]

are we saying, even if the OLE was put in all the way to Sheffield, we would need tilting electric trains?

 

[cactustwirly]

are we saying, even if the OLE was put in all the way to Sheffield, we would need tilting electric trains?

No, tilting trains are very much a 'want' rather than a 'need'

 

[gingertom]

No, tilting trains are very much a 'want' rather than a 'need'

all depends on how much time would be saved being able to fly round the many bends vice the additional costs. The DfT will put a price on that, not a value, and make the call. Can't see them doing it.
Anyway this OT for this thread.

 

[43096]

No, tilting trains are very much a 'want' rather than a 'need'

Electro-diesel 125mph tilting trains are very much an unaffordable fantasy....

 

[Rail Blues]

Electro-diesel 125mph tilting trains are very much an unaffordable fantasy....

On these boards, surely you jest!!!

Surprised no one's suggest the 43 mk 4 91 combo yet since we've reached the silly suggestion stage.

 

[sprinterguy]

On these boards, surely you jest!!!

Surprised no one's suggest the 43 mk 4 91 combo yet since we've reached the silly suggestion stage.

Presumably with tilt fitted bogies on the mark 4s, too.

 

[bramling]

Is there anything actually wrong with the design of the train itself? I've not used either type much, but from my limited experience I think I'd rather Virign had ordered a 9-car EMU version of the Super Voyager instead of Pendolinos. The windows on the latter are puny. Some decent seats, a better interior layout (improve the window alignment and legroom) and, importantly, decent train lengths, would work wonders with the Voyagers I reckon. You'd need to electrify the MML to do it, but (assuming there are no significant technical hurdles) giving XC the class 222 fleet and scrapping some class 220 driving vehicles (putting the intermediate coaches into the 222s) would be a good start.

From a passenger point of view, the design can be made reasonably nice - the EMT Meridian units demonstrate this - although there is still the issue that they're prone to noice and vibration (I personally don't mind this, but many seem to).

Operationally they are not good however. For a given length of train they offer low passenger capacity, both seated and standing, with little realistic prospect of improving upon this. They're also heavy and drink fuel.

 

[gingertom]

On these boards, surely you jest!!!

Surprised no one's suggest the 43 mk 4 91 combo yet since we've reached the silly suggestion stage.

43 doesn't have enough power to haul 8/9 MK4s and a 91. A pair of 67s might though.

 

[tbtc]

Given that this stock was to provide extra services using the additional path out of King’s Cross and that NR haven’t done the necessary work to make this path available, then I would say retention of these sets is at best unlikely.

Agreed (and, one of the reasons for VTEC being able to walk away from the ECML franchise without much punishment, given that the Government had a weak case in terms of meeting their side of the bargain).

I was never sure whether the retention of the 225s was based upon VTEC winning the paths that First will need for their London - Edinburgh service or was intended as a stopgap measure so that (once the 80x assembly line at Newton Aycliffe is drying up in a few years time), VTEC would be able to put in another order for 80xs - i.e. no point in announcing six hundred carriages of 80xs straight away - announce an order for five hundred coaches now and then (once these trains become popular and reliability improves and the production line is getting quieter) announce a further hundred coaches in a couple of years time - thus generating even more positive headlines.

Lastly, what is wrong with scrapping electric trains if (as has been said by a few different people) they are knackered..

Nothing wrong with that - all trains are only designed for a finite life - they will all get scrapped one day - unless you can transform them into something different (e.g. putting a diesel engine in a 319 to make it a 769) then we have to accept that some electric trains will get scrapped whilst there are still some diesel trains around.

Otherwise we end up with threads along the lines of "My Solution For Re-Using Those Redundant Carriages From 460s" etc.

Why need tilting for the MML?

I don't think we do - there are a few bends (hence the MML being a lot slower than the ECML to get a hundred miles north of London) but I don't think that it is twisty enough to warrant narrower trains that can't be cascaded elsewhere as easily. We should be moving away from non-standard trains, rather than creating more fleets of them (hence the problems we've experienced when classes like the 460s are moved from what they were built to do - see also the 185s that are good for TransPennine but will struggle to find such suitable lives afterwards).

 

[gingertom]

Presumably with tilt fitted bogies on the mark 4s, too.

MK4s were built with tilt capability. Tilt mechanisms never fitted, never will be, unless someone has money to burn.
I've said before in this thread. Chris Grayling has said there will be new fleet of bi-modes, so there will be a new fleet of bi-modes. Didn't say who'd make them as they haven't gone to tender yet, but Hitachi, Bombardier, Stadler are but 3 of the several who can do it.

 

[sprinterguy]

MK4s were built with tilt capability.

Passive provision - The bodies were built to a tilt profile, an amended design of tilting bogie would have been developed if the proposed Mark 4-T order had been approved for the West Coast.

That mine and 43096s' tongue in cheek proposals appear to have garnered a degree of considered response says it all about the likelihood of some of the suggestions in this thread.

 

[D2007wsm]

You have then used up all of the ICEC Diesel vehicles, leaving none for the 5 car units (for serving new destinations off the ECML), or for the 801s which are contractually obliged to have some means of propelling themselves should they be unable to move under the wires - another lovely expensive contract variation to stare at. Sure your plan does work, but only if you want to like for like replace the HSTs on the MML and East Coast, there is still a fundamental shortage of MTU fitted vehicles. Doncaster could still service the MML sets (after all, Neville Hill does their HSTs at the moment, requiring a few trains to and from Leeds every morning and afternoon) - but the contracts go well beyond maintenance.

They are, however, required under the contract to be easily modifiable in length/formation, so that is something that doesn't need worrying about.

Lastly, what is wrong with scrapping electric trains if (as has been said by a few different people) they are knackered.



Oxford and Bristol (and Thames Valley Branches) have been indefinitely deferred, not 'deferred to CP6', seemingly because both Bristol TM and Oxford stations are due for resignalling/rebuilding and so doing the electrification ahead of those is rather pointless. As far as I'm aware, neither of those things have yet made much progress, so I still suspect that we'll see all of the ECML infrastructure upgrades completed before we see the wires reaching Oxford and Bristol.



Why should the MML get casts off? Every man and his dog across the country are getting new trains, so why shouldn't the MML. MK4s + HSTs are a more than acceptable stop gap should they be needed to tide over the period between PRM-TSI coming into force and the delivery of new stock, but why should the MML be lumbered with them for the forseeable?

The current Government have decided that the MML isn't being wires, and so the best of that situation has to be made in the meantime. You are right that the MML had (and still does have) a good business case, which was massaged to make it look less good, in order to justify dropping it - primarily because NR are spending so much on electrification that it is pretty unsettling for ministers, and I would love to see it electrified - but at least whilst the Conservatives are in power (or there is some sort of shift in thinking) it ain't happening. Replacing with bi-modes makes the best of a bad situation, it allows them to reduce emissions at the Southern end of the Route (where pollution is at it's worst), combined with a performance increase, whilst retaining through services. I would hope that by the time that all cars have become electric (2050 at the earliest I would think, the 2040 deadline is for cars solely powered by ICEs, for now), a shift has occured and the line is electrified (and the engines removed from the bi-modes to leave EMUs) or it has been relegated to a secondary route with the bulk of services provided by HS2.

The signalling system at Bristol Temple Meads was upgraded over Easter resulting in a 5 day complete blockade of the station.

 

[Helvellyn]

It is all sorted. Someone in Derby has dusted down some designs and decided to go with APT-H (H for Hydrogen) and the tilt will allow faster journeys.

http://www.traintesting.com/images/APT-E-sept74-IW.jpg

 

[Rhydgaled]

You have then used up all of the ICEC Diesel vehicles, leaving none for the 5 car units (for serving new destinations off the ECML), The whole point is that ICEC doesn't have the infrustructure necessary for introducing all the new fleet/services; my assumption is that if they cannot operate the extra services they planned they don't need the 5-car bi-modes or for the 801s which are contractually obliged to have some means of propelling themselves should they be unable to move under the wires - another lovely expensive contract variation to stare at. Again, the contract is (potentially) the problem; reducing the weight of the 801s by not having the diesel engine probably helps a little with the power supply issue; less weight = less power required to move it.

Lastly, what is wrong with scrapping electric trains if (as has been said by a few different people) they are knackered.

Depends on the train. In most cases there's nothing wrong with that if the train is truely knackered. The IC225s shouldn't be knackered though (electrics are supposed to last longer than diesels, and the IC125s have lasted longer and been worked just as hard). Also, even if they have somehow been worked harder than their diesel cousins and need to be withdrawn from service, 91110 and 91131 are significant (the former holds the UK locomotive speed record and the latter I believe was the last loco built at Crewe works) and should be preserved (along with a rake of mark 4s including DVT if somebody wants to use a 91 for railtours; they'd look silly hauling anything else (although I know it's possible)).

Oxford and Bristol (and Thames Valley Branches) have been indefinitely deferred, not 'deferred to CP6', seemingly because both Bristol TM and Oxford stations are due for resignalling/rebuilding and so doing the electrification ahead of those is rather pointless.

I knew there was a reason I wasn't too upset about Oxford and Bristol being deferred, the resignalling/rebuilding was it. Still, I thought the Bristol project at least was also a CP5 project; it may well slip into the start of CP6 but with work on the Filton bank 4-tracking (part of the resignalling project?) well underway I hope it isn't all that far off.

Why should the MML get casts off? Every man and his dog across the country are getting new trains, so why shouldn't the MML. While there are alot of new trains happening, relatively few of them seem to be diesel MK4s + HSTs are a more than acceptable stop gap should they be needed to tide over the period between PRM-TSI coming into force and the delivery of new stock, but why should the MML be lumbered with them for the forseeable because the alternative is being lumbered with diesel power for even longer, and because the East Coast probably cannot (yet) use its entire fleet

I would hope that by the time that all cars have become electric (2050 at the earliest I would think

Assuming a new MML fleet would arrive in 2023, a 30 year life would take them to 2053.

 

[swt_passenger]

Weren't they planning on using EMUs? It'd be nice if they do decide to use 91 hauled sets instead though!

The ORR ECML decision letter of 2016 reads:

“...From FirstGroup for 5 off-peak return services a day between London and Edinburgh calling variously at Stevenage, Newcastle and Morpeth, using new trains comparable to IEP rolling stock.”

 

[43096]

The ORR ECML decision letter of 2016 reads:

“...From FirstGroup for 5 off-peak return services a day between London and Edinburgh calling variously at Stevenage, Newcastle and Morpeth, using new trains comparable to IEP rolling stock.”

Do the paths for those services rely on the infrastructure upgrades that VTEC were also relying on to create the paths from the 2020 timetable? The upgrades that haven't been delivered.

Second, have First actually ordered the stock for them - can't recall seeing any announcement.

 

[swt_passenger]

The First Group OA rights don’t commence until 2021, (as published in 2016), so as of now there’d have been no urgency about ordering the stock.

I doubt there’s going to be much to see for a year or two...

 

[Domh245]

The IC125s had a fairly major refurbishment about a decade ago, the IC225s haven't. It is true that electrics should last longer than Diesels, but given the current situation - I don't think that will hold for the next few years, or at least as long as there is a shortage of Diesel stock. One of the 91s is going to be preserved (I want to say 91110), as well as the vinyls of 91111.

I think that it is mainly because of the fleets being replaced that we are seeing the balance between Electric & Diesel that we are, but even then, new Diesels at Northern & WMT, as well as bi-modes at GWR, GNER, Greater Anglia, aren't exactly a small quantity, and we will almost certainly see more added through Wales & Borders, and the next EM franchise.

Also, do not forget that the new trains will be bi-mode, not pure diesel. It'd be a bold move to order pure DMUs given Jo Johnson's declaration about all pure diesel trains being scrapped by 2040. The hostage-situation type scenario of the MML being electrified to release bi-modes to other routes wouldn't play out like that, so we might as well make use of the fiercely competitive train building market at the moment to get some good quality new stock for a reasonable rate. As you estimate, it should last until the early/mid 2050s, by which point they'll have either been reverted to EMUs or will be operating slower services on a more 'secondary route' in nature MML.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The First Group OA rights don’t commence until 2021, (as published in 2016), so as of now there’d have been no urgency about ordering the stock.
I doubt there’s going to be much to see for a year or two...

And the ECML upgrades necessary to produce the extra paths for First Group (and LNER's expansion) are not yet approved or scheduled.

 

[whhistle]

We should be moving away from non-standard trains, rather than creating more fleets of them (hence the problems we've experienced when classes like the 460s are moved from what they were built to do - see also the 185s that are good for TransPennine but will struggle to find such suitable lives afterwards).

While standard trains are nice, there just needs to be some forward planning and thought gone into it, and the ROSCOs need to accept that some trains just need to be scrapped in favour of new.

Take the Pendolinos - I don't expect them to live anywhere else.

So long as trains are planned for future growth, having them non-standard is okay.
Although I understand about Transpennine. Although I question why 3-coach diesel trains were ordered to replace 3-coach diesel trains. They should have been at least 4 coaches long, if not 5.

 

[Mordac]

While standard trains are nice, there just needs to be some forward planning and thought gone into it, and the ROSCOs need to accept that some trains just need to be scrapped in favour of new.

Take the Pendolinos - I don't expect them to live anywhere else.

So long as trains are planned for future growth, having them non-standard is okay.
Although I understand about Transpennine. Although I question why 3-coach diesel trains were ordered to replace 3-coach diesel trains. They should have been at least 4 coaches long, if not 5.

First Group wanted that IIRC (or maybe it was more units so they could run doubled up more often, but the late unlamented SRA put the kibosh on that.