|
|
Post by phil on Nov 1, 2016 16:06:35 GMT
Just to clear up the confusion around the 373s, around 8 trains are to be retained and refurbished (as 'e300's) and the remainder are to be scrapped. One (the first) departed for scrap last week. The NoL units are all - aiui - stored and will also be scrapped. Indeed, one power car has already been passed to the national collection and is on display at the NRM. The units are, without a doubt, life-expired and any re-use would not be practicable. Would you also agree on the Intercity 225s being life expired in that case, and if so for what reason? The InterCity 225s are life expired in the sense that their control systems are inefficient, prone to break down and difficult to source spares for. What many people fail to take into account of is the sheer speed that electronics develops at - basically computer chip manufacturers stop supporting / making the necessary hardware / software. As such anything involving electronics will most definitely be considered 'life expired after 25 years regardless of the physical structure it is contained in. A sound bodyshell means nothing if the insides are rubbish (technically speaking) and nobody is going to spend money of renewing said systems if buying new is cheaper / provides a better financial return. As such for the 225s to be made fit for another two or three decades of service they need gutting and rebuilding with the latest traction power and control systems. This is expensive and the leasing company is not going to do it on a whim - they require guarantees about making good on their investment. This is why the 455s on SWT are being fitted with a new traction package, they are pretty much guaranteed to remain in service for the next decade or so thus allowing the costs to be recouped from the upgrade. The other advantage is the 455s are a much earlier, and thus basic design than the 91 loco, containing pretty much zero computerisation and lots of traditional old fashioned electro mechanical control gear. The improvements modern control gear can deliver are thus correspondingly grater and the installation easier as a result. As for the class 373 Eurostar units - like the class 91 they contain lots of outdated computerised control gear which is now obsolete and expensive to support. They also have a problem that (1) they are built to UK loading gauge and (2) have lots of redundant stuff / design compromises relating to when they used the 3rd rail power supply in the UK. Indeed I believe that the report into the snow chaos experienced 5 years or so ago highlighted both theses factors in forcing the placement of key pieces of equipment in positions where ice and snow ingress was guaranteed to be a problem, however many winter precautions were taken. Thus any decision to retain the 373s must be weighed against the fact that they need extensive work to effectively rebuild them so they can be as good as the Siemens offering. Even then, due to the use of separate power cars and relatively short articulated coaches (a by-product of the UK loading gauge I believe) a new Siemens set has an extra 150 seats over a 373 which can translate as valuable revenue at busy times. The 8 class 373 Eurostar sets being retained in the short term are there because:- (1) Ashford International station and its approaches lack the French KVB safety system used throughout the rest of HS1 (including St Pancras) and the Siemens 374 sets don't have UK AWS / TPWS installed. (2) Some services extend beyond Paris and onto the French domestic network where either the 1500V DC electrification is in use and fitting this capability / obtaining clearance from SNCF to use the 374s is considered not worth the cost. Given that EU funding (ironic in given the UKs vote to leave said body) has been made available to fit KVB to the Ashford area then this retention of 373 sets in the longer term is questionable. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 1, 2016 16:09:45 GMT
A gentleman put his head out of the Guards droplight in a 442 set (the only window in the entire train so fitted) and came into contact with a signal gantry suffering terminal head injuries as a result. See www.gov.uk/government/news/fatal-accident-balham |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 17:49:18 GMT
With the intercity express programme lined up, the class 800/1 are set to replace the hsts and the class 91s operating out of King's Cross. This got me thinking, are the class 91s really life expired having only entered service around 1988-90? I can understand the hst need to be replaced as they are 40 years old now,however to me it seems that the class 91s are not even 30 yet! The eurostar class 373s are only a few years younger and are set to run for a while still. I most certainly hope there is use for the intercity 225s after their departure from the ECML as they aren't life expired yet! I'm guessing that Mk 3s & 4s are beeing replaced because they're not post-2020 PRM TSI accessibility compliant, as they don't have any facility for the disabled. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 1, 2016 19:24:33 GMT
With the intercity express programme lined up, the class 800/1 are set to replace the hsts and the class 91s operating out of King's Cross. This got me thinking, are the class 91s really life expired having only entered service around 1988-90? I can understand the hst need to be replaced as they are 40 years old now,however to me it seems that the class 91s are not even 30 yet! The eurostar class 373s are only a few years younger and are set to run for a while still. I most certainly hope there is use for the intercity 225s after their departure from the ECML as they aren't life expired yet! I'm guessing that Mk 3s & 4s are beeing replaced because they're not post-2020 PRM TSI accessibility compliant, as they don't have any facility for the disabled. That is not an issue, you just need to modify the interiors and alter the doors (as per Chiltern). In any case the Mk3s ScotRail plan to use in their shortened HST sets MUST be PRM TSI compliant so a solution will be found. The biggest issue with reusing M3 / Mk4 stock is quite simply that multiple units are a far more superior solution on the UKs crowded railway network - maximising passenger space while simultaneously being able to benefit from innovations like distributed traction and the ability to combine services into a single train to save paths with no faffing around with locos. Under current plans a small fleet of shortened 225 sets are supposed to be retained by VTEC once the majority of services are given over to IEPs, while rebuilt Mk3s will live on in the shortened ScotRail HST sets. The Mk3s are also likely continue under Chiltern in the short term, but given that franchise is up for renewal in 2022, I would imagine that will change in the medium term with further multiple units being ordered or alternatively new build coaches procured (a follow on order from the batch scheduled to be built for Northern / TPE being a possibility). |
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Nov 1, 2016 22:04:53 GMT
They are creating a problem on GWR with 10 coach trains of two five car units splitting at Plymouth with the front set going on to Penzance. With no through connection they require two catering trollies, possibly two train managers. I bet if no catering trolly is available on one unit the passengers go without. Also the new trollies mean the end of hot bacon rolls.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 4, 2016 16:27:05 GMT
They are creating a problem on GWR with 10 coach trains of two five car units splitting at Plymouth with the front set going on to Penzance. With no through connection they require two catering trollies, possibly two train managers. I bet if no catering trolly is available on one unit the passengers go without. Also the new trollies mean the end of hot bacon rolls. Oh dear. I hate it when trains are formed of two or more units that do not have end gangways. Apart from the need to duplicate services this also means that passengers who accidentally join the wrong portion cannot just walk through the train... One of the first web pages which I made for my (then) nascent website was on this very topic. I can see me adding five-car class 800/1/2 trains to this webpage, when they enter service. I admit that my comments will not please people who do not like to see personal opinions being stated. Some of what I say is based upon something that a manager at C2C once said when he said that he did not want passengers walking along the inside of a train to be nearer the platform exit at the destination station. This is something that I often do, including nowadays on S stock trains! citytransport.info/Walk.htmWith thoughts turning to ticketing, I wonder what happens if passengers have reasonably-priced advance-purchase 'nominated train' tickets with seat reservations but join the wrong portion? [Because they did not realise the situation, the platform did not have shelters and they did not want a soaking in heavy rain or were rushing and walking along the platform would have seen them miss the train.] Surely they can not be forced to buy fresh tickets - after all they are on the right train - its not their fault that the train is not fully walk-through?! Simon |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744 
|
Post by class411 on Nov 4, 2016 18:00:59 GMT
Some of what I say is based upon something that a manager at C2C once said when he said that he did not want passengers walking along the inside of a train to be nearer the platform exit at the destination station. This is something that I often do, including nowadays on S stock trains! One annoying aspect of passenger behaviour ('behaviour' in the technical sense - I'm not saying they are misbehaving!) is when entraining at a terminus where the barrier as at the end of the platform (fairly usual arrangement), the do not look to check the state of the signal, but lurch at the first set of doors (particularly if they are closing [usually just on air-con conserving close]), enter, and then walk up the train, often the length of several carriages. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Nov 4, 2016 18:34:31 GMT
Advance tickets are usually "Booked train only" not "booked seat only", though I gather some guards try and enforce the latter (which isn't for discussion here).
Northern have an annoying habit of running a corridor fitted unit with a non-corridor unit. It's particularly annoying when you see a matching combination across the platform, can't they run the two corridor units together? Sorry, rant over.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 4, 2016 21:30:55 GMT
They are creating a problem on GWR with 10 coach trains of two five car units splitting at Plymouth with the front set going on to Penzance. With no through connection they require two catering trollies, possibly two train managers. I bet if no catering trolly is available on one unit the passengers go without. Also the new trollies mean the end of hot bacon rolls. Oh dear. I hate it when trains are formed of two or more units that do not have end gangways. Apart from the need to duplicate services this also means that passengers who accidentally join the wrong portion cannot just walk through the train... While you make a valid point , please remember the class 800/801 IEP trains are designed to have a top speed of 140mph with initial operations at 125mph. No railway in the world operates trains with end gangways at that speed, principally due to the problems of making cabs sufficiently strong enough to not disintegrate in the event of a impact and the need to provide the best possible sighting of signals etc. In other words whatever your views on end gangways, from an engineering point of view they are impossible to provide in high speed stock and their omission should not be used as a stick to berate the designers of the 800/801 trains. Duplicated facilities are thus an unavoidable side effect when high speed trains operate in multiple - and its worth noting the French have been doing this for decades when two TGV sets are run together. Yes the a 5 car IEP is shorter but the same principle applies and users will simply have to get used to it in the coming years. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Nov 4, 2016 22:10:07 GMT
If we can do it at 110mph, surely higher speeds can't be that difficult?  Or maybe it spoils the aesthetic? |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 4, 2016 23:58:00 GMT
If we can do it at 110mph, surely higher speeds can't be that difficult? kinetic energy, and therefore the crash protection required, increases as the square of the speed, so at 140mph you need twice as much as at 100mph. The need for streamlining also increases as aerodynamic drag also increases with the square of the speed |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 5, 2016 14:17:06 GMT
If we can do it at 110mph, surely higher speeds can't be that difficult? kinetic energy, and therefore the crash protection required, increases as the square of the speed, so at 140mph you need twice as much as at 100mph. The need for streamlining also increases as aerodynamic drag also increases with the square of the speed Also there is a step change in the relevant UK regulations at 110mph (this slightly odd number is due to conversion from the metric speed laid down in various EU documents differentiation "high speed" and "ordinary" trains). Previously the UK regulations also banned passengers from travelling in the leading vehicle of the train exceed 100mph - hence the DVTs built for the WCML and ECML rather than a DBSO style solution which also interoperated passengers. |
|
|
|
Post by humbug on Nov 8, 2016 13:45:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Nov 8, 2016 14:25:13 GMT
I, and no doubt many others would like to know what these are? Considering the precision with which IKB built the line, I assumed the electrification would be easier to install than other lines  |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Nov 8, 2016 14:44:10 GMT
Eight are being upgraded to 'e300' standard, the rest are going. |
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,831
|
Post by Dom K on Nov 8, 2016 14:52:54 GMT
Mod Comment: As interesting as the latest Government news article regarding electrifying is, it is going off topic. May I suggest a new thread! Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Nov 8, 2016 15:12:20 GMT
I, and no doubt many others would like to know what these are? Considering the precision with which IKB built the line, I assumed the electrification would be easier to install than other lines The problems have been many, and mostly are the faults of the people between Brunel and now (although narrowing it down to mid 70s to now will have much the same effect). One problem was that all of the staff who had worked on the big electrification schemes (WCML, ECML, London - Bedford, etc) had all moved on or retired as there had been no major electrification works since the end of the ECML electrification so there was very little experience (enter consultants) which incurred expense and yielded some very optimistic planning. There was also an issue with all of the signalling cabling being buried underground (a great idea at the time to defer copper thieves) but caused problems because any documents that showed where they were buried (if they existed at all) were lost under Railtrack. Therefore, earlier in the program, they kept on accidentally cutting through cables that weren't supposed to be there when they were piling, so they had to start digging test holes to check for cables, which added costs and delays. There were also issues with new toys that wouldn't work at first, and several other little bits that all started to add up and spiral out of control. It's not really an issue though for the intercity services - they can just use their new stock anyway as they are all bi-modes now, although there might have to be some expensive contract adjustments to allow for 125mph running on Diesel instead of the 100mph that was agreed initially. The real issue is going to be the fact that all of the Thames Valley lines have been deferred, so all of the new Electrostars that they've ordered and have started to receive, won't be able to replace the old Networker Turbos that were then going to be cascaded Westwards in turn releasing trains for other parts of the country or for scrap (in the case of class 143s). Maybe some of the freed money will go into research and roll out of battery technology for the electrostars allowing these cascades to take place, but I'd be amazed if they were. Certainly the whole thing is a mess. |
|
|
|
Post by humbug on Nov 8, 2016 15:17:19 GMT
I, and no doubt many others would like to know what these are? Considering the precision with which IKB built the line, I assumed the electrification would be easier to install than other lines www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-37908735
Probably more to it than that, of course the press don't always tell the full story.
|
|
|
|
Post by humbug on Nov 8, 2016 15:18:58 GMT
Mod Comment: As interesting as the latest Government news article regarding electrifying is, it is going off topic. May I suggest a new thread! Thanks This has quite a big impact on the trains Hitachi are building. Instead of running as electrics with occasional diesel power, it'll be the other way around. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 8, 2016 15:58:50 GMT
This has quite a big impact on the trains Hitachi are building. Instead of running as electrics with occasional diesel power, it'll be the other way around. Maybe not such a huge impact - the class 802s for the West Country are already to be specced with a higher rated diesel engine and larger fuel tanks. It shouldn't be impossible to build more of them and fewer 800s As for the dmu cascade - might this be an opportunity for Vivarail? |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Nov 8, 2016 16:00:00 GMT
Mod Comment: As interesting as the latest Government news article regarding electrifying is, it is going off topic. May I suggest a new thread! Thanks Not so far off topic as GWR will now have Class 387s with no way of getting to Oxford. This may impact on the use of Class 800/801 and how many they need. |
|
|
|
Post by humbug on Nov 8, 2016 16:11:42 GMT
The 57 class 800s for the GWR are pretty much all built, or will be in the next few months - they were the first IEP's to be ordered.
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Nov 8, 2016 16:21:17 GMT
This has quite a big impact on the trains Hitachi are building. Instead of running as electrics with occasional diesel power, it'll be the other way around. Maybe not such a huge impact - the class 802s for the West Country are already to be specced with a higher rated diesel engine and larger fuel tanks. It shouldn't be impossible to build more of them and fewer 800s As for the dmu cascade - might this be an opportunity for Vivarail? The conversion would mostly be a matter of paperwork and software. In terms of hardware, the motors and engines fitted to the 800/801s are identical to the 802s, but the key difference is that the engines are software limited to a certain power output, limiting the top speeds as well, in order to increase fleet availability (fewer engine changes). But because of the way the contract was specified, changing this over will be very expensive indeed. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that Vivarail are sufficiently advanced with the D-train for it to be a viable strategy necessarily. It is supposed to be going into a trial with London Midland, but there is no published start date for that, which raises a few questions and concerns. Even then, I'm not sure that they would be suitable for use on the lines that will be affected by this - but they could always be used indirectly - perhaps being sent to EMT to release trains that can be sent West. I'm not sure if all of the GA Diesel stock has been accounted for yet, and there are whisperings that the SWT DMU fleet will be replaced at the next franchise, which could also be sent West. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Nov 8, 2016 16:26:20 GMT
I, and no doubt many others would like to know what these are? Considering the precision with which IKB built the line, I assumed the electrification would be easier to install than other lines The problems have been many, and mostly are the faults of the people between Brunel and now (although narrowing it down to mid 70s to now will have much the same effect). One problem was that all of the staff who had worked on the big electrification schemes (WCML, ECML, London - Bedford, etc) had all moved on or retired as there had been no major electrification works since the end of the ECML electrification so there was very little experience (enter consultants) which incurred expense and yielded some very optimistic planning. There was also an issue with all of the signalling cabling being buried underground (a great idea at the time to defer copper thieves) but caused problems because any documents that showed where they were buried (if they existed at all) were lost under Railtrack. Therefore, earlier in the program, they kept on accidentally cutting through cables that weren't supposed to be there when they were piling, so they had to start digging test holes to check for cables, which added costs and delays. There were also issues with new toys that wouldn't work at first, and several other little bits that all started to add up and spiral out of control. It's not really an issue though for the intercity services - they can just use their new stock anyway as they are all bi-modes now, although there might have to be some expensive contract adjustments to allow for 125mph running on Diesel instead of the 100mph that was agreed initially. The real issue is going to be the fact that all of the Thames Valley lines have been deferred, so all of the new Electrostars that they've ordered and have started to receive, won't be able to replace the old Networker Turbos that were then going to be cascaded Westwards in turn releasing trains for other parts of the country or for scrap (in the case of class 143s). Maybe some of the freed money will go into research and roll out of battery technology for the electrostars allowing these cascades to take place, but I'd be amazed if they were. Certainly the whole thing is a mess. Thank you and Humbug for the insight. |
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,831
|
Post by Dom K on Nov 8, 2016 16:27:51 GMT
Mod Comment: As interesting as the latest Government news article regarding electrifying is, it is going off topic. May I suggest a new thread! Thanks Not so far off topic as GWR will now have Class 387s with no way of getting to Oxford. This may impact on the use of Class 800/801 and how many they need. I agree there maybe impact, but the OP and the title is talking about the 225s specifically. Most of the discussion has veered off this from time to time and there is a danger of moving away from the OP completely. Your suggestion about impact is speculative, we don't know if this is the case yet. To make it easier I will amend the thread title to make it more generalised. |
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,831
|
Post by Dom K on Nov 8, 2016 16:35:12 GMT
I've modified the title to make it more generalised. From this point on this should be the discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Nov 8, 2016 19:12:56 GMT
The scandal is why it costs so much in this country compared with Europe to electrify rail lines. The severn tunnel has been electrified after a 40 day blockade working day and night. The route via Bath could have been done in a similar way. With all trains being bi-mode it is tempting to delay electrification.
Newton Abbot-Plymouth electrification may remain a pipedream and regular London-Plymouth in three hours gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 8, 2016 20:00:31 GMT
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that Vivarail are sufficiently advanced with the D-train for it to be a viable strategy necessarily. The cascade of dmus couldn't have started until the wires reached Oxford anyway. Couldn't the D trains be ready in time to replace the Pacers which would have been replaced by 166s had 387s been able to free them up on the original timescale? |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Nov 8, 2016 20:55:54 GMT
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that Vivarail are sufficiently advanced with the D-train for it to be a viable strategy necessarily. The cascade of dmus couldn't have started until the wires reached Oxford anyway. Couldn't the D trains be ready in time to replace the Pacers which would have been replaced by 166s had 387s been able to free them up on the original timescale? The D trains could be ready before 2020, but given how Vivarail's plans appear to have slipped, nobody could say for certain (other than Vivarail who have been fairly quiet of late). Direct replacement of pacers with D trains probably isn't going to happen (the need to recast timetables and so on), but then again, FGW aren't going to be forced to remove pacers entirely by 2020 unlike Northern, so it is possible that they'll pick up some of the 144s from Northern which after some modifications (see the 144e pacer prototype) would be fine to carry on until the cascades eventually happen. |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Nov 11, 2016 22:53:22 GMT
The scandal is why it costs so much in this country compared with Europe to electrify rail lines. The severn tunnel has been electrified after a 40 day blockade working day and night. The route via Bath could have been done in a similar way. With all trains being bi-mode it is tempting to delay electrification. Newton Abbot-Plymouth electrification may remain a pipedream and regular London-Plymouth in three hours gone. 'Europe' is not a homogeneous entity, I would point out. Can you be more specific on the costings per kilometre please? |
|
