GNER to go!

[Parkey]

On saturday I was sat innocently on Waverley station platform waiting for my train back to London when I got approached by a "market researcher" from first group doing a survey to aid their ECML bid. This means I've got a phonecall from first group to look forward to sometime this weekend. Why oh why did I decide to be helpful?!

If First's plan for the ECML is like the one for the Great Western, to shunt half of the stock onto sidings to cut costs and pack everybody into the rest then I hope they don't get it.

What difference do the companies themselves actually make anyway? The lines are maintained by network rail, the fares are set mostly by the government, the timetables controlled by the government. Surely all that's left is the colour of the carriages and what sandwiches the buffet stocks.

[Griff]

What difference do the companies themselves actually make anyway? The lines are maintained by network rail, the fares are set mostly by the government, the timetables controlled by the government. Surely all that's left is the colour of the carriages and what sandwiches the buffet stocks.

The companies look after their stations, customer care on stations and making sure the stations are well mantained. They decide which trains will work what routes and so are in control of customer care on the trains are well - this includes comfort, food, health and hygiene. They can appeal to the government to increase routes - GNER have just added more services to Leeds. They probably do a lot more as well. The companies basically do everything that isnt setting the timetable, fares and 'looking after' the track.

[Ameecher]

They also have quite a large say in the timetables. As GNER is the main operator on the ECML the timetable usually works in their favour (although the recent Grand Central didn't go in their favour). The TOC also decides on the quality of train that runs the route.
Another thing TOCs do have control over is ticket prices, despite what you say Parkey, it may be that the ticket price is affected by government fees but ultimately the ticket price is down to the TOC.

[Parkey]

I guess I'm just used to paying for "saver" or "cheap" tickets. The ones that are government approved price hikes instead of TOC approved price hikes.

Anybody got any thoughts I can pass on if First do end up calling me?

I honestly think that all the GNER services I've ever travelled on could have done with at least another couple of standard class carriages. Anyone know if there are any MK4 coaches in storage anywhere? If they argue that the platforms aren't long enough then why can't they pay for it themselves? What is a platform other than a mound of earth with a few paving slabs on it. It's not like the demand isn't there.

[Griff]

I guess I'm just used to paying for "saver" or "cheap" tickets. The ones that are government approved price hikes instead of TOC approved price hikes.

Anybody got any thoughts I can pass on if First do end up calling me?

I honestly think that all the GNER services I've ever travelled on could have done with at least another couple of standard class carriages. Anyone know if there are any MK4 coaches in storage anywhere? If they argue that the platforms aren't long enough then why can't they pay for it themselves? What is a platform other than a mound of earth with a few paving slabs on it. It's not like the demand isn't there.

It might just be a mound of earth and a few paving slabs but its not easy to put in, not only does it mean disruption, in large stations you would have to move the signals at the end of said platform, hope to hell it wouldnt screw any crossovers up and you need government permission. I'm sure Ameecher can come in and help me out with details.

[Ameecher]

Well for a start there are no mk4's in storage, all of them are in storage, an option could be adding additional HST sets but that is bloody wasteful to run a Diesel the 400 miles to Edinburgh/Glasgow or the 200miles to Leeds when it is all electrified. Even if there were extra coaches extending platforms is a very costly excercise. It may just be a mound of earth and paving slabs but at Kings Cross, Edinburgh and Leeds space is very restricted. A full class 91 and mk4 set takes up almost the whole of the platform at Kings Cross and there is absolutely no room to extend the platforms due to the presence of the crossovers and the tunnels at the station mouths, a similar situation is the case at Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, York, Doncaster, Newark, Grantham, Peterborough (although the tunnels aren't the cases there). This means that every major station the GNER serves would need rebuilding and major track reworking. That is just the stations!
Then there will need to be resignalling done because the train could end up being longer than the signal block and thus reducing capacity because not as many trains can run along the line at a time.

So yeah, just bung a couple of non-existent carraiges on the train and pile up some earth and pave over it, It'll fine!

@JPMaster, is that the sort of thing you wanted?

[Parkey]

Well there goes the government's "mumble mumble longer trains mumble mumble" policy. Roll on the treasury devised "lalalalalalalalalalalalalala!" policy.

What about using a multiple-unit train like the pendolino? Surely that'd take away the loco and DVT and give the equivalent of two more carriages. Probably too expensive. Ah well, so the ECML bid will be all about how many seats the bidders are prepared to pull out to add extra standing room so we can stand all the way to Edinburgh.

It's all okay though, because I read somewhere that the DfT thinks that introducing road pricing will REDUCE demand for rail, and that the current surge of increasing demand won't last. Nothing to worry about then.....................................

[Griff]

I doubt they are going to bring in Pendolino type trains for the ECML - one as either Ameecher or Worley said the ECML isnt bendy enough to warrent them and second, GNER just undertook a million odd pound refurbishment for Project Mallard, so they wont get rid of them just yet.

[Dave]

Lengthening carriages does not involve the East Coast Mainline.

It involves the West Coast Mainline and some commuter routes.

The 91 is built for the ECML exclusively. It's the new Deltic, or Flying Scotsman, as it were.

They have another 10 years in them at least.

Pendolinos may supplement 91s in the future, but they won't totally replace them.

[Parkey]

I expect the HST2 or whatever its called will be the new train for the ECML surely?

[Ameecher]

The trouble with introducing new trains is that there is actually nothing wrong with the 91s. They are fine they are little over 15 years old and have just had a massive refurbishment and are like new. They are very reliable and nothing is fundamentally wrong with them. A better solution would be better fleet utilisation. This could be achieved by electrifying the "other" route into Leeds.

Currently the KX to Leeds trains leave the ECML at Doncaster and travel through Wakefield where line speed is lower and there are stopping services. If the Leeds to Hull line were electrified as far as the ECML (just west of Selby), this would allow two things. Extended 125mph running because the trains stay on the ECML for longer and leave it at Selby and enter leeds from the east, they could then reverse OR have a shorter stop than currently and then continue west and return via Wakefield to Doncaster.

I suspect that Pendos will never run on the ECML but that a similar style MU with a high running speed but no tilt will operate instead

Edit:

I expect the HST2 or whatever its called will be the new train for the ECML surely?

It depends on whether HST will be electric or diesel (or both as it is currently being thought) the main candidates for HST2 are MML, FGW and GNER to replace their HSTs, it is unlikely that HST2 will replace 91s anytime soon.

[Parkey]

... it is unlikely that HST2 will replace 91s anytime soon.

Good. I like them!

This report for the DfT projects 55% overcrowding on the ECML by 2016. I seriously can't see how any improvements to just the ECML could cope with the projected demand.

[Dave]

The new HST2 may well be in use by 2014.

This will bring the 91s to 25 years of age. This is at least a chance to downgrade them from the workhorse of the ECML.

By this time I should hope that the electrification that Ameecher speaks of would be complete.

The HST2, incidentally, is supposedly drafted by the DfT as a dual-powered unit - both diesel and electric. That could be interesting.

Whatever happens, the last great invention of BREL will leave us in the next ten-fifteen years.

[Ameecher]

The HST2, incidentally, is supposedly drafted by the DfT as a dual-powered unit - both diesel and electric. That could be interesting.

Let's just hope they don't do a class 73 on us so that it works fine on the wires but overheats as soon as it's off them because its being run by a 500hp piece of rubbish that is the railway equivalent of a lawn mower engine.

[Parkey]

The HST2, incidentally, is supposedly drafted by the DfT as a dual-powered unit - both diesel and electric. That could be interesting.

To me that sounds like an idea from an analyst and not an engineer. An electric train that hauls a diesel engine around with it or vice versa would be horribly inefficient. That said, hybrid engined trains sound like a definate possibility. One also has to bear in mind what the price of oil is likely to do in the next 10 years and compare that to the 30-year lifespan of a train. Diesel trains might start to get a bit expensive to run before too long.

My idea would be a standardised type of carriage and DVT that all have traction motors, and then a power car that can be fitted with either a large diesel engine or a pantograph and transformers etc. Then all you need to do is choose the appropriate power car for the route. If you have a long train where one diesel isn't powerful enough, you can have two power cars. This system could be used for formations of any desired length.

[Ameecher]

The HST2, incidentally, is supposedly drafted by the DfT as a dual-powered unit - both diesel and electric. That could be interesting.

My idea would be a standardised type of carriage and DVT that all have traction motors, and then a power car that can be fitted with either a large diesel engine or a pantograph and transformers etc. Then all you need to do is choose the appropriate power car for the route. If you have a long train where one diesel isn't powerful enough, you can have two power cars. This system could be used for formations of any desired length.

The problem there lies with stock utilisation. GNER have a depot at Hornsey, if the rake of coaches came into KX and the loco needed to be changed it would have to back track to Hornsey depot (out near Finsbury Park) change locos, this involves a lot of ECS moves that are frankly unnecessary and reduce the capacity of already busy lines at this stage. This practise harks back to the steam age and was greatly inefficient.

Another problem lies when you get the GNER routes from London to Dundee/Aberdeen/Inverness or Hull where the majority of the route is electrified but the last section is not electrified, what would you do then? run a diesel under the wires or run electric and then switch to Diesel at the last station before electrification ends?
Nice idea in theory but then you could clog the station for a while (and what if the coupling jams?) it would also require the posting of a shunting crew and storage sidings for locomotives at stations Like Edinburgh once again, BR may have made some poor decisions when it came to cutting costs but cutting out locomotives change overs was a good one. the only time that locos are changed now (that I can think of) is when the Caledonian Sleeper is split into it's respective bits at Edinburgh, the oppurtunity is then taken at that point to change the locos over from Electric haulage (class 90 from London Euston) to Diesel haulage (class 67s - it used to be 37s) for the final legs to Fort William, Aberdeen and Inverness. This is only practical because at that time of night (it's about 1 or 2 in the morning when the train is at Edinburgh) there is little going on to disrupt.

Edit: another problem then lies with needing more locomotives because you'd need lots of them stationed along the route for change overs so that you don't have to run them "light" in order to get the desired locomotive to the correct location.

[andel]

The HST2 project is a good few years from completion... no matter who wins, the trains will ultimately be decided upon by the DFT. Don't forget that trains must also be cleared by Notwork Rail in order to run on each stretch of line - a distinct problem that was incured with the Networkers.

You must also remember that if the leasing company chose to hike the rates on any stock (e.g. HSBC Rail who also own - shock - GNER), the operating company has the option of finding new stock... god help us!

I don't want First (or Worst) Great Cock Up to get it. To be honest, I'm quite scared.

[Parkey]

I guess one possibility would be to have the electric power car as a middle and not an end carriage like on the pendolino. That way if the route were entirely electrified the train could run with a DVT on each end, but if it needed to run on sections that weren't electrified it could have a diesel power car to fire up when the wires ended. The important thing is the flexibility offered.

I prefer the HST and Class 91 sets to these newfangled Voyagers and Adalantes because they don't have an engine chugging away under your seat.

I agree with Andel, I'm not keen on the idea of a second Worst Late Western. I think National Express would be okay, after all Midland Mainline is pretty good. I don't know much about Arriva. Virgin/Stagecoach would probably be my first choice because Richard Branson has this little thing called vision. All first group would do is paint the trains purple. Virgin might actually try to innovate.

[Dave]

If Arriva Trains Fails are anything to go by, f*** THAT.