New Pendolino's for the ECML?

[JamieLei]

Also voyagers/meridians are unsuitable for long runs up the east coast to aberdeen- 5 hours with a diesel engine throbbing away under one's feet is not pleasant!

Believe me, 9.5 hours for going up to Dundee certainly wasn't fun, at least until I pretended it was like sitting in an uncomfortable massage chair!

Apparently in the good old days, you could get away with sitting in the dining car for the entire journey, eating 3 meals very very slowly!

[supermop]

Forgive me for intruding where its not my plce to speak, my knowledge of british rail transport being some 11 years out of date, but I have been wondering why there has not been serious considerations into double deck trains along the west coast. I'm guessing the wire and tunnels are too low, but I've never actually heard it put forward even to be rejected, Don't get me wrong, I generally have a strong dislike for double deck carriages, but they seem to be sucessful on lines where higher speed trains have increasingly become used for peak hour commuting - Shinkansen, TGV (i think, not sure). NJT runs A LOT of ~100 mph double deck stock on the NEC over here, but it rarely reaches that kind of speed. As I said, I am pretty unfamiliar with the issue, as when i lived in the uk, I was in Harrogate, so only ever traveled on the ECML.

Jamie, as to why the Acela has its speed so restricted, the wiring is only a small part. A short section of overhead in Conecticut is seriously inadequate, but much of the problem is caused by other factors, like inadequate headway (on much of the line acela shares the inner "express" tracks with the slower amtrak services), curves being too tight, and in some parts the track being too close together for the train to tilt as much as it can without hitting other trains, resulting in the tilt being restricted to a smaller angle over the entire route. I even spotted a handful of level crossings in Conecticut last time I took the Acela.

An additional question, I was under the impression that 1XX denoted a DMU, and 3XX an EMU. Are the 200's also used for electric units?

Best,

[audigex]

1xx is diesel direct power (ie the engine drives the wheels)
2xx is diesel-electric (ie the engine drives a generator, which makes the power for the motors - basically only the 220-2 and IC125 units previous name)
3xx is overhead electric
4xx is 3rd rail electric


And yes, the main (entire?) reason for no double decker trains on the WCML is the guage issue. There are a lot of very old tunnels and bridges which don't give enough clearance, especially with space for the overhead power lines.

[JamieLei]

They did a study into double-deck trains a few years back, on commuter lines. They calculated it would cost £16bn to upgrade the Brighton Main Line (A LOT to do with tunnel widening, or drilling whole new tunnels) and it would be slightly cheaper to extend the platforms to 16 coaches. Plus that gague wouldn't have even been continental loading gauge. The document is an interesting read - have a search on the forum - I linked to it a few years back in some thread.

[Kevo00]

Of course, we could have built a whole new WCML with double decker capacity and cab signalling, for the price of the botched upgrade...what a missed opportunity.

[Ploes]

what gauge is HS1 built to and HS2 going to be done to (if ever)? Anyone know?

[Kevo00]

Berne gauge, and I assume HS2 would be too. But its hypothetical at best.

[61653]

HS1 is built to Berne (continental) gauge, as will be HS2 if it ever sees the light of day. The next-gen Eurostar trains will thus be cheaper in real terms than the 373s were, as they needed to fit onto the narrower loading gauge of the route to Waterloo International, and squeezing all that equipment into a small bodyshell pushed the cost up somewhat. Hopefully the 373s will be replaced sooner rather than later, allowing the 373s to be overhauled and used for (possibly open-access) services from Manchester/Leeds/Glasgow/Birmingham-Paris/Brussels services, in addition to extensions of HS2 services along 'classic' lines. I'd assume there's more of a case for double deck stock on high-volume commuter routes rather than on long-distance high speed routes anyway even where the infrastructure is in place.

[audigex]

Eurostar's are still pretty new in the scheme of things, surely a low priority? And they're one of the units least worth cascading, since their top speed is useless anywhere else on the network; it'd be more wasted hardware. Anyway, aren't they mooted to be in service to 2020 or later?

Unfortunately, we're at the stage where most of the BR-inherited rolling stock is reaching the end of it's lifespan: and with no money to replace it.

[Dave]

Yeah but there's a reason for that - the last new BR-built stuff is now coming on for 15-20 years old.

But what have we had since 1997?

66s, 67s, 70s, 168s, 170s, 171s, 172s to come, 175s, 180s, 185s, 220s, 221s, 332s, 333s, 334s, 350s, 357s, 360s, 365s, 375s, 376s, 377s, 378s, 379s to come, 380s to come, 390s, 395s, 444s, 450s, 458s, 460s...

So we're not in the worst position, are we? Most places doing alright - 150s look tired, 153s have been refurbed, 158s have been refurbed, 165s refurbed... Only the Pacers and early Sprinters look tired.

We've got three or four new units to come, we look alright. There's no shortage.

[audigex]

Oh it's not dire, don't get me wrong... just that there are still quite a few areas which are going to need funding, which I can't see them getting.

Anyway, we've discussed pacers+sprinters to death

[Dave]

Oh it's not dire, don't get me wrong... just that there are still quite a few areas which are going to need funding, which I can't see them getting.

Anyway, we've discussed pacers+sprinters to death

I reckon any 150 cascade will involve a major overhaul - they're structurally sound and are well maintained; it's the mechanics that are struggling.

[audigex]

Exactly. And the Pacers really need to go.

I reckon the rest of the sprinter fleet is in good enough shape to weather the recession and then be replaced when things perk up, as will the similar age EMU stuff.

Other than that, it's only really the HSTs, 91s and the other loco-hauled stock which needs replacing; these are the real priorities. There's plenty of stock ready to cascade down from the projects under construction to cover most of the country. A few small projects to expand capacity will keep things ticking over for now.

[supermop]

Again butting in where I dont belong, but my limited time long ago on the ECML was entirely on HST and 91s, although at that age I only knew them as 125 and 225... Surely with rebuilt passenger stock the 91s would have a decade or some more left in them? My relationship to these units is long and complex from aesthetic, sentimental, and emotional perspectives, so maybe I my judgement is clouded as to just how obsolete they are. Are the HST locomotives really in such bad shape that need urgent replacement? Personally, I find an HST in a sharp livery looks more up to date and impressive today than it did in 1997 when I rode them. a 125mph diesel locomotive would be a welcome sight over here if not for the loading guage, as many states are looking to restart meager high speed rail projects to vye for federal money.

Anyway, feel free to roll your eyes at my ignorance....

Best,

[Kevo00]

I agree actually, I think we can get another 10 years out of the 91s easily. 20 years is relatively young for a train. The HSTs have only recently been re-engined too and should be able to manage 5 or so more years.

[EXTspotter]

If the HSTs may only last for another 5 years without needing another overhaul, would it be getting to the point where overhauling them will (over time) cost more than replacing them.... If the answer is it would be cheaper to replace them, why aren't governemnt making an effort to replace them. Deffering the programme again to October surely isn't a good thing in terms of going ahead with the project.

[audigex]

Because they're trying to cut as much as possible, and to the higher ups, a cheap refurbishment is less expensive in the short term than a costly replacement. The government only really cares about the next 4/8 years. Replacing the trains in 10 years is likely to be someone else's problem.

[Kevo00]

Agree, the problem was the last government wanted an expensive bespoke design, while I'm sure something off the shelf could have been procured more cheaply. I think the days when we bear the R&D costs of manufacturing vehicles specifically for UK needs, with little chance of export, are over.

In any case, i believe train replacement should be the TOC/ROSCO's responsibility, not the DfT's - I firmly believe a lot of the complaints generated about railways stem from the fact that in the last couple of years, the DfT has dictated who can have what, not the market.

[EXTspotter]

At the same time the DfT has to intervene in cases where the market couldn't support the infrastructure, however where there is an important social or environmental case for the upkeep of the railway, e.g. the Cumbrian Coast. As for allowing the TOCs to sort out their own rolling stock,etc, I believe that in the system we have of short term franchises, the TOCs wouldn't want to order anything new as like the government they would take the financial burden and afterwards maybe only get a years use out the to stock before someone else takes over the franchise. Chiltern really is a model of how the franchise system should work. Because they have a much longer franchise they are willing to invest in the route, stock, etc, as they KNOW they will get a long term benefit from the investment.

[Dave]

Chiltern really is a model of how the franchise system should work. Because they have a much longer franchise they are willing to invest in the route, stock, etc, as they KNOW they will get a long term benefit from the investment.

On the other hand, they worked long and hard on shorter franchises before the longer franchise was given - if Virgin retain the West Coast - and at the minute it looks like they will, I'd expect a longer franchise to be in place.