Eurostar scrapping class 373s

[298]

Best International EMU Hiding Place 2016?

It's all very Thomas the Tank Engine, isn't it. And not even similar to one of the good stories that taught you about Railway operating practices, it's more like Henry hiding in a tunnel because he didn't like the rain.

[SGP]

 

 

Also seems a shame to see stored 90's rotting away when again class 66 or 70 diesels are running under the OHLE, what a waste.

The reason why electrics are out of favour with freight companies, is that the whole route for a given service is not always fully electrified. An electric loco on a long distance freight would at some point require a diesel for some of the journey and quite often a diesel would not be available or have to be sent light from miles away. Far more sensible to put the diesel on the job in the first place. Also, a diesel pays only a track access charge whereas an electric pays a track access charge AND an overhead line access charge. 

Passenger trains have strict routes and so can be booked on an electrified route fully whereas a freight may have to be diverted or pay a heavier access charge and / or suffer longer delay. 

There is always the exception to the rule though .... remember Pendolino's being routed through to Holyhead?

[nightstar.train]

Hence the new class 88s. Having a small Diesel engine they can go into non electrified sidings and yards, and even down branch lines. They won't be very fast under Diesel, but that's not the point really. I hope they work well for DRS and more are ordered. With the introduction of all the bi-mode SETs and the new Anglia units it seems we'll be coming to the end of diesels running for miles under wires. About time, especially in the case of the London-Aberdeen/Inverness on the ECML. 400 miles under the wires on Diesel power!

[jim.snowdon]

Hence the new class 88s. Having a small Diesel engine they can go into non electrified sidings and yards, and even down branch lines. They won't be very fast under Diesel, but that's not the point really. I hope they work well for DRS and more are ordered. With the introduction of all the bi-mode SETs and the new Anglia units it seems we'll be coming to the end of diesels running for miles under wires. About time, especially in the case of the London-Aberdeen/Inverness on the ECML. 400 miles under the wires on Diesel power!

Which, if I remember correctly, is part of the reason why the 91+Mk4 sets for the ECML were designed that way, so that at Waverley, the electric could come off and be replaced by a diesel, in just the same way as the Southern Region had been doing for years at Bournemouth with the through Waterloo - Weymouth services.

 

More recently, I believe the same approach was suggested as the better alternative to having the bi-mode IEP sets hauling the deadweight of diesel generator sets over much of their working mileage but dismissed by the mandarins at the DfT who could not understand a loco change being done during the train's normal dwell time. On the other hand, had they followed traditional railway advice, they would shortly be in a right pickle with the Great Western electrification, where the introduction o fthe IEPs is being saved by their being bi-mode (and GWR changing their order to all bi-mode).

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

Which, if I remember correctly, is part of the reason why the 91+Mk4 sets for the ECML were designed that way, so that at Waverley, the electric could come off and be replaced by a diesel, in just the same way as the Southern Region had been doing for years at Bournemouth with the through Waterloo - Weymouth services.

 

More recently, I believe the same approach was suggested as the better alternative to having the bi-mode IEP sets hauling the deadweight of diesel generator sets over much of their working mileage but dismissed by the mandarins at the DfT who could not understand a loco change being done during the train's normal dwell time. On the other hand, had they followed traditional railway advice, they would shortly be in a right pickle with the Great Western electrification, where the introduction o fthe IEPs is being saved by their being bi-mode (and GWR changing their order to all bi-mode).

 

Jim

 

But then they wouldn't have had an excuse to cutback GWML electrification - two sides to every coin.

[The Johnster]

Just like modern cars then !!! - A throw-away train !!!!

 

Brit15

 

Not fair.  Cars in the 70s were designed to last 5 years or 50k miles, modern ones can manage 4x that easily, with indestructible engines, better treated bodywork, and design that doesn't include roof gutters draining onto the tops of Mcpherson struts (I'm looking at you, mk1 Escort, but there were others).  Modern cars last years and are usually seen off by shock absorber or steering problems.

[Chris Higgs]

Not fair.  Cars in the 70s were designed to last 5 years or 50k miles, modern ones can manage 4x that easily, with indestructible engines, better treated bodywork, and design that doesn't include roof gutters draining onto the tops of Mcpherson struts (I'm looking at you, mk1 Escort, but there were others).  Modern cars last years and are usually seen off by shock absorber or steering problems.

 

I'll agree with that. I just bought a 14 year old car with not a spot of rust on it, and an engine as good as new.

[nightstar.train]

Which, if I remember correctly, is part of the reason why the 91+Mk4 sets for the ECML were designed that way, so that at Waverley, the electric could come off and be replaced by a diesel, in just the same way as the Southern Region had been doing for years at Bournemouth with the through Waterloo - Weymouth services.

 

More recently, I believe the same approach was suggested as the better alternative to having the bi-mode IEP sets hauling the deadweight of diesel generator sets over much of their working mileage but dismissed by the mandarins at the DfT who could not understand a loco change being done during the train's normal dwell time. On the other hand, had they followed traditional railway advice, they would shortly be in a right pickle with the Great Western electrification, where the introduction o fthe IEPs is being saved by their being bi-mode (and GWR changing their order to all bi-mode).

 

Jim

I did wonder why they didn't run Mk4s to the frozen north with a diseasel on the front. Did they not order enough Mk4 sets, or some other reason?

 

As to the GWR fiasco. If they had ordered electric trains with diesel locos for pulling them, then the locos would be under construction now, or just about fully delivered. With a production line up to speed it wouldn't take long to bang out a few more, surely no longer than switching the SET order over to all bi-mode. Although unless the diesel could some how power the electric distributed traction package I guess they'd be absolutely stuffed on the timings, even more so than they are now.

[Ken.W]

Which, if I remember correctly, is part of the reason why the 91+Mk4 sets for the ECML were designed that way, so that at Waverley, the electric could come off and be replaced by a diesel, in just the same way as the Southern Region had been doing for years at Bournemouth with the through Waterloo - Weymouth services.

 

I did wonder why they didn't run Mk4s to the frozen north with a diseasel on the front. Did they not order enough Mk4 sets, or some other reason?

 

The 91+Mk4 sets were designed for the 91 to come off and work the sleepers and postal / parcels trains overnight. The sleepers were never re-instated on the East Coast following electrification though, and following Sectorisation the Postal / Parcels were effectively a separate company, so this didn't happen.

 

Only 31 Mk4 sets were built, the East Coast prior to electrification (just checking the 125 group website history) had 34 HST sets, and 9 were retained (now back up to 15). As far as I was aware there was never any plan to completely replace them on EC, and there'd have been several problems with that;

The Mk4 set's a heavy train by passenger standards, around 450 tons, so there wasn't an available diesel loco of sufficient power that would have maintained the existing HST timings (with 4500 hp for an approx 50 ton lighter set).

No diesels can multiple / work in push-pull mode with 91s / Mk4s (which use the TDM system)

Mk4s also have a heavy ETH load. The ETH index of the 67s generally used for haulage is insufficient for the full ETH load of a Mk4 set - the kitchen's meant to be isolated when the sets are diesel hauled. Somehow doubt 'no catering available north of Edinburgh' would go down well.

Given the erm, 'reliability' of the Mk4s air-con, they'd be unlikely to be very welcome up in the 'frozen north'

[Dunsignalling]

Not fair.  Cars in the 70s were designed to last 5 years or 50k miles, modern ones can manage 4x that easily, with indestructible engines, better treated bodywork, and design that doesn't include roof gutters draining onto the tops of Mcpherson struts (I'm looking at you, mk1 Escort, but there were others).  Modern cars last years and are usually seen off by shock absorber or steering problems.

And, increasingly, dead electronics that are uneconomic to fix. The provision of ever more such features in new cars will probably make it the biggest single reason for scrappage in a few years time. A mate in the trade reckons the "all-the-bells-and-whistles" models should be badged "MTGW" (more-to-go-wrong).

 

Also, cars are nowadays designed for ease/cheapness of assembly with little thought of access for future component replacement. Many things that ought to be fixable require so much workshop time just to get at the failed item that quite a lot of scrappage now arises from relatively minor faults with the rest of the vehicle having bags of life left in it.

 

Planned obsolescence hasn't gone away.   

 

John

Edited March 8, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[frobisher]

Only 31 Mk4 sets were built, the East Coast prior to electrification (just checking the 125 group website history) had 34 HST sets, and 9 were retained (now back up to 15). As far as I was aware there was never any plan to completely replace them on EC, and there'd have been several problems with that;

The Mk4 set's a heavy train by passenger standards, around 450 tons, so there wasn't an available diesel loco of sufficient power that would have maintained the existing HST timings (with 4500 hp for an approx 50 ton lighter set).

No diesels can multiple / work in push-pull mode with 91s / Mk4s (which use the TDM system)

Mk4s also have a heavy ETH load. The ETH index of the 67s generally used for haulage is insufficient for the full ETH load of a Mk4 set - the kitchen's meant to be isolated when the sets are diesel hauled. Somehow doubt 'no catering available north of Edinburgh' would go down well.

Mind you, if there had been a solid intention to run the MK4's north of Edinburgh, I'd suspect that new build diesels which addressed all of those points would have been specified. Say something around the 4000HP mark, probably a diesel version of the 89 in effect. But clearly didn't happen and probably clearly never intended.

Edited March 8, 2017 by frobisher

[Ron Ron Ron]

Mind you, if there had been a solid intention to run the MK4's north of Edinburgh, I'd suspect that new build diesels which addressed all of those points would have been specified. Say something around the 4000HP mark, probably a diesel version of the 89 in effect. But clearly didn't happen and probably clearly never intended.

 

 

They didn't need to, as they had the HST's for north of Edinburgh.

In addition to that...and another possible reason that diesel locos weren't ordered, is the fact that the IC225 Mk4 sets were going to be short lived under BR's plans.

It was intended that the proposed IC250 Mk5 coaches planned for the WCML, would also be deployed on the ECML at a later date (possibly early/mid 2000's); replacing all the Mk4 and Mk3 (HST) trains on that route.

 

 

.

[jjb1970]

And, increasingly, dead electronics that are uneconomic to fix. The provision of ever more such features in new cars will probably make it the biggest single reason for scrappage in a few years time. A mate in the trade reckons the "all-the-bells-and-whistles" models should be badged "MTGW" (more-to-go-wrong).

 

Also, cars are nowadays designed for ease/cheapness of assembly with little thought of access for future component replacement. Many things that ought to be fixable require so much workshop time just to get at the failed item that quite a lot of scrappage now arises from relatively minor faults with the rest of the vehicle having bags of life left in it.

 

Planned obsolescence hasn't gone away.   

 

John

 

That has been predicted for over twenty years. Cars increasingly became reliant on electronic control systems from the late 80's onwards and by the 90's it was the norm. Despite that the evidence indicates that cars tend to last for a lot longer than most owners would want to keep them and there is an aftermarket for ECUs etc. Modern car engines are almost (but not quite) a "fit and forget" unit and they're not maintenance friendly, I certainly wouldn't want to work on them but it is also true that reliability has made that not only possible but a perfectly valid approach.

[Coryton]

They didn't need to, as they had the HST's for north of Edinburgh.

In addition to that...and another possible reason that diesel locos weren't ordered, is the fact that the IC225 Mk4 sets were going to be short lived under BR's plans.

It was intended that the proposed IC250 Mk5 coaches planned for the WCML, would also be deployed on the ECML at a later date (possibly early/mid 2000's); replacing all the Mk4 and Mk3 (HST) trains on that route..

 

Hmmm. My memory (which may be faulty, or I was wrongly informed) was that when introduced the Mk4 was intended to be a 'universal' coach like the Mk3, and that the plan was for tilting Mk4's to later be used on the WCML with new locomotives. Hence the tilt profile. 

 

I've seen it said that the intention was to retro-fit the ECML Mk4's with tilt capability, but I believe the aim was just that the same bodyshell design (and jigs?) could be used to built tilting coaches later. (This seems more plausible to me anyway than retrofitting coaches, especially on the ECML which doesn't particularly need tilt).

 

As for diesel locomotives not being compatible with the DVT control system - if HST power cars could be temporarily converted for compatibility (for the hybrid 91-Mk3-43 sets) then perhaps the same could have been done for other diesel locomotives. Or just hauled them non push-pull North of Edinburgh. Running round in Aberdeen and Inverness might not have been implausible. And of course the full power of a 91 is needed to get the Mk4's up to 125 mph and keep them there. Not much 125 mph running north of Edinburgh I think, though acceleration would be reduced with less power available.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Hmmm. My memory (which may be faulty, or I was wrongly informed) was that when introduced the Mk4 was intended to be a 'universal' coach like the Mk3, and that the plan was for tilting Mk4's to later be used on the WCML with new locomotives. Hence the tilt profile......

I believe you are right.

During development of the IC225 and Mk4 coaches, which were initially intended for the ECML, there was a plan for them to be also used on the WCML.

IIRC it was part of the business case, but that proposal was very short lived as BR was already formulating its next big WCML project to follow on from the cancelled APT programme.

That project was the very ambitious IC250, with its 26 metre long Mk5 (non-tilt profile) coaches, which I believe were a development based on the Mk4.

The requirement for tilt capability was subsequently dropped from the Mk4's, before construction began, but it was too late to change the design from the tilt body profile.

 

As I understand it, in the later stages of the IC250 programme, BR decided that new 26 metre coaches would be the future for all its premier IC routes (WC, EC and GW main lines) and there was serious consideration that after deployment of IC250 on the the WCML, follow on orders for MK5's (or a derivative of it) would be suitable replacements for MK3's and Mk4's on the front line services. The latter being cascaded to other services.

I think the idea was for the MK5's to replace the Mk4's behind the Class 91's, hence my comment that IC225 Mk4 sets would have been short lived under these BR plans.

 

Ironically, when IC250 was cancelled in 1992, in the run up to privatisation, it was again suggested that a follow on batch of IC225's might be ordered for the WCML; but that proposal was considered commercially unviable.

 

 

.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Ron Ron Ron

[Ken.W]

Mind you, if there had been a solid intention to run the MK4's north of Edinburgh, I'd suspect that new build diesels which addressed all of those points would have been specified. Say something around the 4000HP mark, probably a diesel version of the 89 in effect. But clearly didn't happen and probably clearly never intended.

 

 

Hmmm. My memory (which may be faulty, or I was wrongly informed) was that when introduced the Mk4 was intended to be a 'universal' coach like the Mk3, and that the plan was for tilting Mk4's to later be used on the WCML with new locomotives. Hence the tilt profile. 

 

I've seen it said that the intention was to retro-fit the ECML Mk4's with tilt capability, but I believe the aim was just that the same bodyshell design (and jigs?) could be used to built tilting coaches later. (This seems more plausible to me anyway than retrofitting coaches, especially on the ECML which doesn't particularly need tilt).

 

As for diesel locomotives not being compatible with the DVT control system - if HST power cars could be temporarily converted for compatibility (for the hybrid 91-Mk3-43 sets) then perhaps the same could have been done for other diesel locomotives. Or just hauled them non push-pull North of Edinburgh. Running round in Aberdeen and Inverness might not have been implausible. And of course the full power of a 91 is needed to get the Mk4's up to 125 mph and keep them there. Not much 125 mph running north of Edinburgh I think, though acceleration would be reduced with less power available.

 

The non-compatibility of the control system just one factor though. The main one would be maintaining the existing timings for HSTs - which have 4500 hp for a 50 ton lighter train. Yes, there's no 125 mph running north of Edinburgh, but their power's still required for the heavy gradients, so for the heavier Mk4s and their higher ETS load, something like 5000 hp + would be required. Or significantly increased journey times.

 

There was certainly the intention, as I understood, of the EC Mk4 sets being retro-fitted with tilt for future increases in line speed, which never happened. They were, remember, designed for 140 mph operation, IC225 = 225 kph (140 mph), for which tilt would have been required.

In fact, one loco, 91002, was actually fitted when new with the 'Tilt Inverter' supply equipment, and the jumper cable sockets were located in the underside of the No2 end headlight 'box'. They also all had a 'Tilt' fault light on the desk (it's place now taken by an 'Interlock' repeater light instead of just having them behind you on the bulkhead), and all still have the empty Tilt Inverter cubicle in the equipment bay.

It was said in GNER days they needed to spend the money on refurbishment to make them work (the 91/1 re-build) rather than adding more complications to them

[D854_Tiger]

The non-compatibility of the control system just one factor though. The main one would be maintaining the existing timings for HSTs - which have 4500 hp for a 50 ton lighter train. Yes, there's no 125 mph running north of Edinburgh, but their power's still required for the heavy gradients, so for the heavier Mk4s and their higher ETS load, something like 5000 hp + would be required. Or significantly increased journey times.

 

There was certainly the intention, as I understood, of the EC Mk4 sets being retro-fitted with tilt for future increases in line speed, which never happened. They were, remember, designed for 140 mph operation, IC225 = 225 kph (140 mph), for which tilt would have been required.

In fact, one loco, 91002, was actually fitted when new with the 'Tilt Inverter' supply equipment, and the jumper cable sockets were located in the underside of the No2 end headlight 'box'. They also all had a 'Tilt' fault light on the desk (it's place now taken by an 'Interlock' repeater light instead of just having them behind you on the bulkhead), and all still have the empty Tilt Inverter cubicle in the equipment bay.

It was said in GNER days they needed to spend the money on refurbishment to make them work (the 91/1 re-build) rather than adding more complications to them

 

Anything above 125 mph requires in cab signalling as well which I believe is the real showstopper for 140 mph.

 

The lack of such a system is the same reason those Pendolinos do not run at their design speed of 145 mph.

 

Then, whisper it quietly, but south of Rugby there are only a couple of places where tilt is actually required for 125 mph running and some would have you believe the mandatory tilt requirement, for much of the WCML, is more about protecting Virgin from the competition.

 

Where tilt really comes into its own on the WCML is north of Preston on those helter skelter stretches.

 

On which subject, it's always been a bit of a mystery to me why tilt has never been proposed for Exeter - Plymouth, surely the most painfully slow stretch of main line in the country even if the view does rather make up for it.               

[Bomag]

 

 

There was certainly the intention, as I understood, of the EC Mk4 sets being retro-fitted with tilt for future increases in line speed, which never happened. They were, remember, designed for 140 mph operation, IC225 = 225 kph (140 mph), for which tilt would have been required.

 

I had a number of chats with the mechnical engineers overseeing the Class 91s+ Mk4s on my trips to Kings Cross Eastside offices in 89/90. They were clear that although the body was of a design which could tilt there was no intention of fitting tilting to them. They did say that somebody was working on updateing the design for tilting for the WCML - presuambaly what came out as IC250.  What stopped Class 91s + Mk4s doing more than 125mph in service was the signaling, it took to long for a 91 to brake from 140mph to fit in with the signal spacing i.e. upon seeing a double yellow there was not enough space for a normal service brake application to stop the train before passing the red. This is why they devised the flassing green for the high speed test. The feedback was that even after they swicthed round the bogies on Mk4s the ride at above 130mph was 'lively'.

[D854_Tiger]

I had a number of chats with the mechnical engineers overseeing the Class 91s+ Mk4s on my trips to Kings Cross Eastside offices in 89/90. They were clear that although the body was of a design which could tilt there was no intention of fitting tilting to them. They did say that somebody was working on updateing the design for tilting for the WCML - presuambaly what came out as IC250.  What stopped Class 91s + Mk4s doing more than 125mph in service was the signaling, it took to long for a 91 to brake from 140mph to fit in with the signal spacing i.e. upon seeing a double yellow there was not enough space for a normal service brake application to stop the train before passing the red. This is why they devised the flassing green for the high speed test. The feedback was that even after they swicthed round the bogies on Mk4s the ride at above 130mph was 'lively'.

 

Would any retrofit of tilt to those mk4s have included the class 91 or was the intention at 140 mph just to keep the soup off passengers' laps even if that meant sending the driver swivel eyed.

[frobisher]

Would any retrofit of tilt to those mk4s have included the class 91 or was the intention at 140 mph just to keep the soup off passengers' laps even if that meant sending the driver swivel eyed.

I don't think there was provision within the 91's to be tilt fitted (happy to be proved wrong) but I would presume that the buckeye on the TSOE coupled to the 91 would have sufficient rotational latitude on tilt fitted MK4's so as not to cause "issues". I don't know if they had that as built though.

[Chris Higgs]

Would any retrofit of tilt to those mk4s have included the class 91 or was the intention at 140 mph just to keep the soup off passengers' laps even if that meant sending the driver swivel eyed.

 

The driver would have had a smooth tilting ride in one direction, and something much less plesent the other way!

[The Stationmaster]

Anything above 125 mph requires in cab signalling as well which I believe is the real showstopper for 140 mph.

 

The lack of such a system is the same reason those Pendolinos do not run at their design speed of 145 mph.

 

Then, whisper it quietly, but south of Rugby there are only a couple of places where tilt is actually required for 125 mph running and some would have you believe the mandatory tilt requirement, for much of the WCML, is more about protecting Virgin from the competition.

 

Where tilt really comes into its own on the WCML is north of Preston on those helter skelter stretches.

 

On which subject, it's always been a bit of a mystery to me why tilt has never been proposed for Exeter - Plymouth, surely the most painfully slow stretch of main line in the country even if the view does rather make up for it.               

 

Ah, but when BR first proposed 140mph running on parts of the ECML cab signalling was not required.  Hence the 'flashing green' signal aspect already mentioned, and of course actually installed on one stretch, and reference to it on the Rule Book (although I can't remember if that was actually published in the end - although it was definitely drafted and approved internally.

 

But then HMRI stepped in and after due consideration pronounced that 140 mph running would not be countenanced without cab signalling so the idea was dropped although the already converted signals capable of showing flashing green were not alteted (but might well have been in subsequent years).

[Ken.W]

Ah, but when BR first proposed 140mph running on parts of the ECML cab signalling was not required.  Hence the 'flashing green' signal aspect already mentioned, and of course actually installed on one stretch, and reference to it on the Rule Book (although I can't remember if that was actually published in the end - although it was definitely drafted and approved internally.

 

But then HMRI stepped in and after due consideration pronounced that 140 mph running would not be countenanced without cab signalling so the idea was dropped although the already converted signals capable of showing flashing green were not alteted (but might well have been in subsequent years).

The Rule for the flashing green aspects did make it into print as I recall, but not sure if actually made it into the Rule Book, or if it was in a Signaling / Operating notice.

Flashing Green would allow 140 mph running and Steady Green mean reduce to 125.

 

They've never been altered, we still have flashing greens on both Fast lines between Stoke and New England, even on those subsequently altered to LEDs.

[The Stationmaster]

The Rule for the flashing green aspects did make it into print as I recall, but not sure if actually made it into the Rule Book, or if it was in a Signaling / Operating notice.

Flashing Green would allow 140 mph running and Steady Green mean reduce to 125.

 

They've never been altered, we still have flashing greens on both Fast lines between Stoke and New England, even on those subsequently altered to LEDs.

 

Possibly in the Sectional Appendix - definitely not in the 1998 Rule Book.

 

Interesting that the renewals also have flashing greens.

[Coryton]

Possibly in the Sectional Appendix - definitely not in the 1998 Rule Book.

 

Interesting that the renewals also have flashing greens.

 

Cheaper to just replace the signal heads and leave everything else the same?