I.E.P.

[Ron Ron Ron]

HM the Queen isn't impressed with the new trains either. She was heard to say ".....one thinks they're a bit on the small side..."

 

[Reorte]

Do the Mk3 and 4 heights cause problems (as opposed to the door size) that aren't being managed perfectly well at present, or is this regulation for the sake of regulation?

 

 

Erm, why would they want to retain the 225s?

It was notable that other operators who it was suggested would have these foistered off on, oops sorry 'cascaded', were prompt in saying 'no thanks'

Why wouldn't you want to be on one of those instead of anything newer? If the IEP was cheaper to run then I could see operators preferring it, although the odds of it being nicer to be on for passengers is practically nil. If the 225s are cheaper to lease as well then I can't think of a single thing in IEP's favour, other than for those who want new stuff merely for the sake of it being new.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Because as well as being fast, comfortable trains with powered doors it sounds like they are going to be far cheaper to lease than their replacements.

 

The new trains will be fast, plus their acceleration will be much better.

We don't know how comfortable they'll be yet and yes, they'll have power doors too.

So what's your point?

 

Your last point is a valid concern though.

 

Remember also that the IC225 sets will be over 25 years old by the time UK testing of the new trains is expected to commence and over 30 years old by the time of full operational deployment of the new fleet.

They'll then be in the twilight of their operational lives.

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

.....although the odds of it being nicer to be on for passengers is practically nil......

I don't mean to be rude, but how could you possibly say that and publicly pre-judge something you have no idea about?

They could be poorer than what's gone before, pretty much the same, a slight or even marked improvement over the current stock.

Who knows at the present time?

I don't and I'm pretty certain you don't either.

 

 

If the 225s are cheaper to lease as well then I can't think of a single thing in IEP's favour, other than for those who want new stuff merely for the sake of it being new.

The 225's won't be around for much longer after this decade is out, cheaper or not.

They are already over half way past their expected service life and once completely replaced on the ECML, will have less than a decade left.

If they are not replaced, there is a great risk to the provision of IC services on the ECML.

The fleet size is limited and cannot grow to cope with increased demand and as they get older, maintenance and reliability issues will have an increased impact on service provision

 

There is a good argument to say that unlike the IC125 sets, the 225's are being withdrawn a few years too early, but no doubt there are other arguments that favour early replacement and a standardised new fleet.

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Interior design - The DCA Class 800 series mock-up.

 

http://www.dca-design.com/images/content/pdfs/RailwayInteriors2014_Sept.pdf

 

 

 

.

[62613]

That actually looks quite pleasant

[Reorte]

I don't mean to be rude, but how could you possibly say that and publicly pre-judge something you have no idea about?

They could be poorer than what's gone before, pretty much the same, a slight or even marked improvement over the current stock.

Who knows at the present time?

I don't and I'm pretty certain you don't either.

Of course I don't know, I'm merely basing it on my opinion of every other bit of more modern rolling stock that I've seen. I'd like to be proven wrong. I've not heard or seen anything to make me expect to be though. About the only "improvement" is that they'll get there a little quicker and that doesn't hold much appeal. Here one minute, there the next, quite honestly I'd probably be happier if everything slowed down a bit.

The 225's won't be around for much longer after this decade is out, cheaper or not.

They are already over half way past their expected service life and once completely replaced on the ECML, will have less than a decade left.

If they are not replaced, there is a great risk to the provision of IC services on the ECML.

The fleet size is limited and cannot grow to cope with increased demand and as they get older, maintenance and reliability issues will have an increased impact on service provision

 

There is a good argument to say that unlike the IC125 sets, the 225's are being withdrawn a few years too early, but no doubt there are other arguments that favour early replacement and a standardised new fleet.

That sounds like "want new stuff because it's new." If they're going to be knackered beyond economic repair by then then of course they'll need replacing but don't expect me to have any reason to look forward to it. Like I said somewhere else (can't remember if it was this thread or not) the future is something I get depressed about and not excited about.

[Reorte]

That actually looks quite pleasant

Looks like another "get in, get there, get lost" layout. I like the colour scheme though.

[Hesperus]

So what's your point?

I wasn't aiming to disparage the IEP merely responding to kenw's post that appeared to confuse one of the best trains on the network with a pacer or voyager. I'm sure that the ECML does deserve some new trains but I'm sure there must be somewhere that the 225's can improve for their twilight years. If all else fails replace the 91 with a 68 and let Chiltern and ATW's customers enjoy some newer stock and an increased possibility of a seat.

[Ron Ron Ron]

.... If they're going to be knackered beyond economic repair by then then of course they'll need replacing......

 

That would be far too late.

By that stage, the service provision will have crumbled to an absolute shambles, with failed units and unserviceability being a daily occurrence.

A scenario that couldn't possibly be allowed to happen.

 

 

.

[kenw]

Why wouldn't you want to be on one of those instead of anything newer? If the IEP was cheaper to run then I could see operators preferring it, although the odds of it being nicer to be on for passengers is practically nil. If the 225s are cheaper to lease as well then I can't think of a single thing in IEP's favour, other than for those who want new stuff merely for the sake of it being new.

Reliability ! Although admittedly better than they were, the 225s are still very poor. One of the benefits of electrification is always stated to be the greater reliability of electric trains, having no Diesel engines and all their associated faults eliminated. Well, at the latest refurbishment of the 225, it was said this was meant to bring reliability UP TO that of the HSTs, which at the time were achieving double the mileage per failure!

This summer, despite the umpteenth refurb of the a/c, have still been treated to seriously overheating coaches.

Recall an occation in BR days when leaving Newcastle for London, it got the first coach out the platform and that was as far as it went.

Thunderbird had to called to haul it fully back into platform in order to detain. And this was twice in a fortnight!

Like I said, other operators it was suggested to foister these onto were notably quick in saying no!

 

maintenance and reliability issues will have an increased impact on service provision..

That would take some doing

[Reorte]

That would be far too late.

By that stage, the service provision will have crumbled to an absolute shambles, with failed units and unserviceability being a daily occurrence.

A scenario that couldn't possibly be allowed to happen.

Depends what you mean. I'm not talking about keeping them running until they're held together by bits of string, just about keeping maintenance going so they don't get to that stage, things can often remain perfectly viable long after their design life if they're cared for (what was the design life of the class 20s?) And of course like I said they'll need replacing sooner or later, it's just that every new piece of rolling stock that's appeared since the 225s, on inter city routes at least, has left me wishing the old stuff was back. When what was my most regular journey went from a loco-hauled set to Voyahers to 185s I'm sure you can understand that, even if it's quicker now (it's been replaced again by whatever the electric stuff TransPennine has is but I've not been on that yet, the one time it was supposed to be it had been replaced by a 185).

[Ramblin Rich]

The new trains will be fast, plus their acceleration will be much better.

We don't know how comfortable they'll be yet and yes, they'll have power doors too.

So what's your point?

 

Your last point is a valid concern though.

 

Remember also that the IC225 sets will be over 25 years old by the time UK testing of the new trains is expected to commence and over 30 years old by the time of full operational deployment of the new fleet.

They'll then be in the twilight of their operational lives.

.

What about us in the far South West - still soldiering on with IC125 HSTs well into their 4th decade and probably even further as IEP don't seem to be coming this way...

 

Quote from DCA designs document linked above "Now all that’s needed is a tunnel to  Belfast in Northern Ireland!" - how about one inland from Dawlish instead, then we can electrify to Plymouth at least!

[kenw]

it's just that every new piece of rolling stock that's appeared since the 225s, on inter city routes at least, has left me wishing the old stuff was back.

No, every piece since the HST

[kenw]

If all else fails replace the 91 with a 68 and let Chiltern and ATW's customers enjoy some newer stock and an increased possibility of a seat.

Dont Chiltern have MkIIIs refurb to modern standard, with power doors? Replacing them with 225s, now that would be a backwards step

[kenw]

Do the Mk3 and 4 heights cause problems (as opposed to the door size) that aren't being managed perfectly well at present, or is this regulation for the sake of regulation?  

Well, you are talking about EU regulation!

[Ron Ron Ron]

....I'm not talking about keeping them running until they're held together by bits of string, just about keeping maintenance going so they don't get to that stage, things can often remain perfectly viable long after their design life if they're cared for.......

 

There will be a point at which the amount of maintenance and repair work will impact on the number of trains available for service.

There aren't many spare train sets and the requirement is to have as many available as possible, barring current maintenance schedules.

As soon as individual carriages become time expired, or have to be temporarily or even permanently withdrawn from use, the operator will be struggling to provide a service.

 

Sure you could fettle and look after them, but how long before services have to be reduced to allow for that and at what cost?

Maintenance and support could potentially become very costly.

 

We haven't even touched on the provision of extra capacity to meet rising demand. 

 

 

 

.

[pete_mcfarlane]

We haven't even touched on the provision of extra capacity to meet rising demand. 

.

ECML extra demand seems to have been met in the medium term by using HSTs, which are doing things like shuttling from Newark to London and back entirely under the wires. Hardly the best situation. 

[kenw]

ECML extra demand seems to have been met in the medium term by using HSTs, which are doing things like shuttling from Newark to London and back entirely under the wires. Hardly the best situation. 

Services which were originally intended to run through to Lincoln but for which there wasn't the spare stock capacity, and although they do provide some relief on the southern end of the route, KX-NE-Scotland services are still mostly heavily loaded

[Reorte]

There will be a point at which the amount of maintenance and repair work will impact on the number of trains available for service.

There aren't many spare train sets and the requirement is to have as many available as possible, barring current maintenance schedules.

As soon as individual carriages become time expired, or have to be temporarily or even permanently withdrawn from use, the operator will be struggling to provide a service.

 

Sure you could fettle and look after them, but how long before services have to be reduced to allow for that and at what cost?

Maintenance and support could potentially become very costly.

 

We haven't even touched on the provision of extra capacity to meet rising demand.

I'm not talking about keeping them running no matter what, just not about the "it's old and therefore must go no matter what" mentality that I sometimes see signs of. Often people seem to judge on age and not condition, even notwithstanding the odds being that the older something is the more likely it is to be worn out. I strongly dislike the "must be the newest, must be as high-tech as possible" attitude, particularly when it seems to trump "this works." If they don't work terribly well then there's something to be sorted, although it would seem like a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water if it's the locos and the carriages are fine.

 

At some point of course new trains will be needed, whether in addition to or instead of. Alas I dread that day rather than look forward to it. I'm not denying it'll happen though. If they actually feel like pleasant places to sit back and watch the country go by instead of feeling like something we're rammed in to, with flimsy, uncomfortable, cramped plastic seats, in order to be flung to somewhere else as quickly as possible, nothing else matters, then I'll eat my words.

[Richard E]

I'm sorry but 225 maintenance is already cut to the bone and failures are regular if not daily. I've been on sets which have run late or been withdrawn due to door failures, brake failures, pantograph problems and many, many more things. I've only been on one 125 that failed and that was due to damage to the brakes from ice under the train breaking off and damaging the brake gear.

 

However a common issue is very pungent brakes due to the pads being heavily worn, that is not, of course, a failure but it indicates just how close things are being run.

 

EDIT - I'd also add that the interiors on many are now looking tired and in need of a refurb again.

[Coach bogie]

They did not require spare capacity, E.C. chose not to lease the required stock and presented the turn round in policy as an economy.

Capacity should improve if Scotrail get their way and EC will no longer run to Aberdeen/Inverness. The continuance to Glasgow from Edinburgh must surely be in its final years as with the new fast Glasgow-Edinburgh services, it is much quicker to change at Edinburgh rather than go the long way around via Carstairs. Both will allow earlier turn round at Edinburgh allowing an increase in unit availability on the KGX- ED section.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[caradoc]

Capacity should improve if Scotrail get their way and EC will no longer run to Aberdeen/Inverness. The continuance to Glasgow from Edinburgh must surely be in its final years as with the new fast Glasgow-Edinburgh services, it is much quicker to change at Edinburgh rather than go the long way around via Carstairs. Both will allow earlier turn round at Edinburgh allowing an increase in unit availability on the KGX- ED section.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

For the last couple of years EC have only run one train per day to and from Glasgow, the stock of which stables overnight at Polmadie.

[Reorte]

Capacity should improve if Scotrail get their way and EC will no longer run to Aberdeen/Inverness.

That would be a pity, Edinburgh to Inverness on EC is one of the only train journeys I've actually enjoyed in recent years (the other being the Fort William sleeper).

[Ron Ron Ron]

I wonder what bearing the Yes/No vote on Thursday will have on the future prospects of the Edinburgh to Inverness leg of the ECML?

Scotrail may get their wish and the EC Bi-Mode v Electric fleet balance is going to look more like unbalanced.

 

 

.