Pendolino - ECML

[Pilot]

So not much chance of them replacing Northerns Rubbish then

[oleinves]

well, unless the chancellor decided to impose a =>10% tycoon tax on the bosses of companies-escaping-taxation
and put that extra money into relieving our train fees

[JamieLei]

What they should do is electrfy the routes done by HSTs and replace them with Pendolino, which can run with the Class 91/Mark 4 fleet

What, up to Aberdeen and Inverness, Are you serious, what would be the need?

So that you can have the same stock thoughout the ECML

Yes. Because that's completely sensible. Let's also have Pendolinos calling all stations to Peterborough as well.

Maybe Alshom contract the building of the Pendolino to Bombardier in Derby

And perhaps Coca Cola should contract the manufacture of Coke to Pepsico. Why on earth would they do that?

but can Siemens and Alsthom also build trains in the UK?

Hitachi would do that with IEP. Alstom did build trains in Birmingham but they closed it down.

[61653]

I still think all our trains should be built in the UK. Not contracting others outside the UK to build them. Just seems silly to me. Surely you'd want to contract a company that is based in Britain or at least has a factory in Britain. More jobs, supports the economy and the railway infrastructure. Surely?

I don't agree that all trains should be built in the UK, as such a monopoly would result in a British Leyland style of s***, although I do think that the effect on jobs and the economy should be factored into decide what is the cheapest builder. You do have to remember that Bombardier is Canadian though...

Bombardier is Canadian and most of their transport divison is German, but at least they build trains here, I accept that for now, it would be impossible to have a British owned and based company building rolling stock in the UK, but can Siemens and Alsthom also build trains in the UK?

Alsthom's UK division shot itself in the foot with the troublesome introductions of the Coradia/Adelante/Juniper fleets, which contributed to the decision to close the Washwood Heath plant. Of course, the (Birmingham-built) Pendolinos were comparitively trouble-free, despite being much more complex than the 175s, 458s et al...

[Dave]

Do they really think the WCML franchise's model will work on the East Coast?

This has been mooted for years, is it actually definitely happening this time?

[Geo Ghost]

Yes. Because that's completely sensible. Let's also have Pendolinos calling all stations to Peterborough as well.

It is more efficient to have the same fleet of trains

Since when? Different classes are for different uses.
For example on the GN:
The 365s deal mostly with the fast commuter services and long distance commuters between London and Kings Lyn. Sometimes doing the slower services.
The 321s deal with slow and fast commuter services but not the long distance services.
The 317s deal mostly with the slow commuter services and stoppers but sometimes operate fast commuter services. Only sometimes. It's not massively common.
And finally, the 313s, as god-awful as they are, deal with the slow 'all stations' services between London and Welwyn and also round the Hertford loop. They are operate the Moorgate run with the 3rd-rail system.
Not to mention the different coach numbers and formations for each class, route and service. Having one class of train for all those services would be silly as well as confusing.

When it comes to the mainline, the HSTs operate different routes that the 91s usually. The sometimes share the same routes but not always. For example, the 225s predominantly deal with the London-Leeds services and the London-Edinburgh services. HSTs roll out mostly to Glasgow and Inverness (sometimes other routes too). The 180s for Hull Trains... well, the name speaks for itself... they run the route to Hull.

Sod it. I've forgotten where I was going with this now.

[Kevo00]

It's simply not worth electrifying Edinburgh - Inverness and Edinburgh - Aberdeen at perhaps £500m each to save a few millions on the marginal cost of some orders for new trains. Considering that Aberdeen only gets 4 ECML trains a day (one of which goes to Leeds and would also require Leeds-York electrification), and Inverness 1, this would simply be a huge displacement of resources for almost no gain. The ECML electrification itself was wasteful enough on that basis - almost no other trains apart from 91s use the overheads, and HSTs now seem to be used interchangeably on diagrams with 91s.

[Pilot]

Leeds-York electrification

Think its already been given Go Ahead.

[Kevo00]

Leeds-York electrification

Think its already been given Go Ahead.

Even so this is a tiny scheme compared to the two Scottish lines.

I assume it has nothing to do with the bus company?

[Chris]

Leeds-York electrification

Think its already been given Go Ahead.

Even so this is a tiny scheme compared to the two Scottish lines.

I assume it has nothing to do with the bus company?

Ahaha

[Ameecher]

The idea of a 91 on the GEML is laughable. The 90s are already a nightmare to timetable because they can't accelerate fast enough, a 91 will be even more of a lard arse off the line and it can't even run at higher speed to compensate. A better plan would be use them to replace HSTs & 222s on MML if you're going to bother moving them off the ECML, the 222s can then be used to augment the XC fleet.

[Pilot]

Haven't they talked about Electrifying the MML but said it isn't viable or something like that. As you said the 222's can go to XC and the HST could be used by a new Open Access Operator or something like that.

[61653]

There's also the fact that there are only 31 class 91s: already too few to run the full set of services on the core ECML to Edinburgh/Leeds. Leeds-York/Hull is earmarked for electrification as part of the North Trans-Pennine; but this probably won't include Doncaster-Hull, so there's no diesel services on the ECML that'd be able to be switched to electric traction anyway. Electrification on other branches of the ECML would therefore only be worthwhile whan it comes to replacing the core rolling stock fleet, be it with IEP or anything else. The bendydildos are only running on the ECML for testing, and this is at least partially at the behest of insurers who don't want two of the new 390s to collide with each other!

[Kevo00]

It would also be useful for Scotrail services

Between Edinburgh and Aberdeen and certainly if extended to the Fife Circle, yes. Though presumably Glasgow - Aberdeen services, which are almost half of Dundee - Aberdeen trains, would be left as diesel. For Inverness less so, because the Scotrail trains go via the Fife line and a lightly used link to Perth, while East Coast trains go via Stirling. The Scotrail trains are also only one every two hours and not really worth electrifying for.

I would tend to agree the Scottish govt aspiration to electrify north of Edinbrugh is a good one - but the traditional Edin - Glasgow route to Queen Street should probably be the priority (should really have been part of the original ECML scheme rather than the under-used Carstairs line).

[Ameecher]

It would also be useful for Scotrail services

Between Edinburgh and Aberdeen and certainly if extended to the Fife Circle, yes. Though presumably Glasgow - Aberdeen services, which are almost half of Dundee - Aberdeen trains, would be left as diesel. For Inverness less so, because the Scotrail trains go via the Fife line and a lightly used link to Perth, while East Coast trains go via Stirling. The Scotrail trains are also only one every two hours and not really worth electrifying for.

I would tend to agree the Scottish govt aspiration to electrify north of Edinbrugh is a good one - but the traditional Edin - Glasgow route to Queen Street should probably be the priority (should really have been part of the original ECML scheme rather than the under-used Carstairs line).

I suspect that Cupar to Perth would be electrified to avoid having a diesel island and would also be useful with the tay bridge is shut.

[Kevo00]

It would need the Perth-Dundee bit doing too then. Actually a quicker win all round would be getting rid of the mechanical signalling in that area and removing the single track bottlenecks at Perth and Montrose (though I know that would mean new bridges). Then electrification for the Glasgow-Edinburgh-Dundee-Aberdeen triangle could build on it.

Random fact: has anyone ever noticed that there is a short length of narrow gauge track beside the Perth-Dundee line at Kinfauns? Yet I've never seen its existence or use documented anywhere.

[orudge]

My suggestion for the order in which we could electrify Edinburgh and Glasgow to Aberdeen:

Fife Circle Line
Edinburgh - Dundee
Dundee - Aberdeen (- Inverurie; maybe re-double the line from Aberdeen to Inverurie if we're playing wishful thinking)
Stirling - Perth
Perth - Dundee
Ladybank - Perth (at some point, perhaps)

On a tangent, it does seem rather stupid and short-sighted that so many lines were singled back in the days of Beeching. Obviously Aberdeen - Inverness was never double track throughout, but it did used to have a number of dual track sections, which mostly now do not exist. Ah, for our rail map to look like this again! (Although, practically speaking, I realise such a network would likely be quite expensive to run and many of the shorter branch lines would likely not make much money, if any.) I've spent many an hour poring over old maps on SABRE Maps, tracing the old railway lines. Quite sad that so many of them are gone today.

(I also figured out the other day that it'd take something like 5.5 hours to get from Banchory to St Andrews via railway in 1948 (changing in Aberdeen and Dundee), versus about 3.5 hours on the bus today, and 1.5-2 hours by car. So those railway lines wouldn't be especially efficient or practical if they were still operating in that manner today!)

[Kevo00]

(I also figured out the other day that it'd take something like 5.5 hours to get from Banchory to St Andrews via railway in 1948 (changing in Aberdeen and Dundee), versus about 3.5 hours on the bus today, and 1.5-2 hours by car. So those railway lines wouldn't be especially efficient or practical if they were still operating in that manner today!)

This is what people forget about Beeching; he did not cut the railways so much as redistribute their resources to more efficient uses. Its better to run a point to point service between destinations that people want than a thinly spread system of slip coaches and branch trains that people don't want to use. Most branch lines were not built to carry passengers such so much as general freight and were effectively killed off when more flexible road transport by road became available after WW1. Some of the shortest lines were actually closed in the 1930s or early 1950s.

All that said, some of the track rationalization that's taken place happened post Beeching, in the 1970s-90s as BR sought to reduce running costs by de-investing in infrastructure as much as possible.

[GurraJG]

His plan made the decline of the railways even worse, we need to reopen lines in areas not currently served by the railways. We need to think of the railways less as a business and more a public service

Whilst I agree about the public service bit, there are many places in which running a railway would be prohibitively expensive and would be better served by better road services, and buses that actually run on time!

[Ed,]

The other problem is the bus and rail are seen as competitors an integrated solution would be far superior look at what the oyster card has done in London.

every single railway station should connect to the local bus network.