Ken.W

You are right Bob, but the competing bids for the franchise would have all been in the same ballpark, all dancing to the same DfT and Treasury looney tune.

Non of the participants can escape blame here.

If either of the other two final bidders, First Group or Keolis/Eurostar had won the ICEC franchise, I've no doubt the outcome would have been pretty much the same.

 

.

 

Not so sure about that, wasn't it reported at the time that VTEC had bit considerably more that the competition?

 

In this case, Virgin East Coast bid, they should be held to their contract subject to any liabilities of NR for not delivering track upgrades. As somebody else has pointed out, in this case nobody comes out of it looking good.

As I understand it, VTEC did attempt to re-negociate the franchise on the basis that the failure to complete the planed route upgrades meant they would be unable to increase the service levels as required to be able to carry the increase in passengers required to meet the franchise forecasts, and it was DaFT that decided instead to terminate the franchise early

I

The debits on Mark Carne's scorecard are building up at a greater rate than the credits.  Perhaps time for him to fall on his sword, unless Graylng does the deed?

 

Grayling do the deed? Erm, the Transport Minister who, in his first week in office, car-doored a cyclist, reportedly left the scene, and took him all his time to even apologise. Don't hold your breath for that one

Someone mentioned earlier one of the charter groups looking to fit vac brakes to Mk3 stock. Is that indeed possible with disc braked vehicles? I'd suggest not as I don't believe the vac brake could be configured to work with the wheelslide protection equipment fitted.

 

Providing the stock is twin piped air brake, there's no reason why the diesel on the back can't provide air for the train brakes. Where des the air come from for a 91 with DVT on the other end? Probably not the DVT, but the 91. But then I wouldn't know, I've not been trained on 91s or DVTs.

 

There's a proposal for a new charter set being made up from Mk3 stock, but no suggestion of it being fitted with vacuum brakes. It's actually a proposal from the A1 Trust, which of course designed Tornado to be built air braked to avoid all the problems of continuing to operate vacuum braked trains.

 

But yes, having been trained on both, that's exactly how the Mk4 DVT / Cl.91 operate (as do any other driving trailers*, as far as I know). The DVT basically has a driver's brake control, some air reservoirs, and some pipework, basically all a steam loco would need, the compressor's on the 91. Or indeed, how HSTs managed to operate when the front engine shut down - pre re-engining when they were altered so the compressor can now run off the ETS, another possible solution, or combine the two for redundancy.

All UK air-braked passenger stock, as far as I know, uses the two pipe system, so technically the compressor(s) can be anywhere on the train.

 

* Including incidentally, the vacuum braked DMUs, which also had a two pipe system, the exhausters being direct drive off the engines, so not provided on driving trailer vehicles.

 

Mention's been made earlier in comparison of the problems assisting failed units with incompatable couplings to that of assisting a failed vacuum braked train. In the case of the units though, there will be a similar unit around somewhere that can assist, even though it does considerably prolong the delay. It'd be much more of a problem finding a vacuum fitted loco within range to provide assistance in the case of a failed vacuum braked train, unless of course we go back to steam specials always having to tow their own thunderbird on the back - and there was even more complaints about the noise off that than that of an air pump.

 

On the safety aspect, whilst vacuum fitted trains can of course be managed to operate safely, the major issue would be in an emergency situation. Mention has been made in relation to the DP2 incident and the difference that could have been made if the train was air-braked. A much more recent incident, involving the operator of the remaining vacuum fitted charters has also been mentioned. This incident, it will be recalled, narrowly missed fouling a trailing junction ahead of an HST approaching at line speed by around a minute. If the timing of the two trains had been slightly different, then had the charter been air-braked that could very well have made the difference in it stopping short of the fouling point instead of foul of the junction as it did, or in it reaching the fouling point behind the HST.

VTEC have met all their payment commitments to date

 

Note that VTEC were paying premiums back to the government at a significantly higher level than when DOR operator East Coast ran a caretaker service.

 

.

Apparently not now, according to the article linked above;

The East Coast rail franchise could be returned to the public sector after the government announced Virgin Trains had breached its £3.3bn contract

Maybe paying more than DOR, but only by doing so at a level that was untenable and widely predicted to fail

 

Edit to correct auto-incorrect

The main problem Hull Trains will have with their new diesels is all that dead weight they will have to lug around between Doncaster and Kings Cross.

 

There's been no question over the performance of the 800s in electric mode so how will lugging the dead weight of the engines around be a problem?

It's when actually running on the diesels that the performance question arises, and as you've said, HT have had sense to order 802s instead.

 

As opposed to the alternative, Hull Trains' main problem at present of having to run on diesel for 170 miles under the wires for the sake of the short run from Templehurst to Hull, perhaps you'd prefer to see that continue? And after the GWML Electrification fiasco, there's no prospect of places like Hull being electrified anytime soon.

 

I think the emergency diesel is an excellent idea. (I read it adds 1% to the weight of the train...)

 

Having power for air conditioning and lighting even without overhead power will come in useful at times I'm sure.

 

Or - where high speed coasting would be used on an all-electric train - it can presumably get a bit of a boost from the engine and - more to the point - has power for on-board facilities and to make sure the brakes stay off.

 

Exactly. During the periods last year when high speed coasting was being used to get electrics though a dead section, there were at least two occasions of a train running short of Main Reservoir Air and consequently dumping the brake in the middle of the dead section - just because there was no power for the compressor!

 

On another occasion I've previously related, due to a problem I'd to pan down around East Cowton, at about 80, and coast the approx 8 mile into Darlington, no problem speed-wise, still had to brake for going inside at Darlington, but had only just stopped in the platform when the Low Main Air Protection activated!

edit to add; There's even long been considerations of fitting emergency gens. to Mk4 DVTs to maintain train supply when stuck in a dead section, but seems to have been dismissed as unfeasible to fit

 

The problem with the ECML is that the wires come down rather more often than they really should, the WCML wiring is far more substantial and the GW electrification looks like it's been designed to stay up in a hurricane on Jupiter.

 

Then if a train becomes entangled in the wires I'm not sure it's going anywhere until it has been untangled, neither are any trains stuck behind and I'm not sure how diesel engines change that situation.

 

Hotel power is useful but suggests the railway accepts there are just going to have to be long delays, whenever the wires come down, and I'm not sure if that's entirely acceptable.

There has been some upgrading work taking place, particularly of 'weak spots'. For example, all the Neutral Sections in 'headspan' type structures have been converted to portal structures.

If a train's entangled in the wires, having diesel engines will at least allow the one's stuck behind in the dead section to unstick themselves, and for the affected train to keep train supply on for air con etc. If you're still unsure of the value of this, try asking the passengers involved in the incident several years ago where a train was stuck for several hours on the hottest day of the year, and they ended up breaking windows and self-evacuating using emergency door releases, before either suffocating or roasting.

 

Unfortunately, it's part of the nature of things that if a train's entangled in wires, it is going to be there for some time.

A common situation is that the remains of the pan are left in an 'out of gauge' position so the train can't be moved without bringing even more wire down. Something I've experienced in both de-wirements I've attended with thunderbirds.

This requires obviously, fitters to be got out to the site in order to remove the remains of the pan or secure it in a safe position if possible, but also an overhead line crew is needed to drive out to site (usually in the middle of nowhere) from wherever they're based, as it's necessary to physically isolate the affected section - using the manual post-mounted switches - and earthed by attaching actual earthing straps, before then going through the procedures of issuing authority to work permits, before anyone even thinks about going up on the roof to do the work. Usually the adjoining line also needs isolating while this takes place, so there's need to balance getting the work done and not getting too many trains stacked up in the queue.

What might seem not entirely acceptable is not always in line with what's possible. You don't p*ss about where there's 25 killer volts about

Not mentioned so far, but Refuge Sidings could also be facing to direction of travel - the train would run straight in and be backed out.

 

There were several like this on the Newcastle - Carlisle line. The 'box would have a pair of Refuge Sidings, one each direction, running parallel to each other from the points at the 'box, with one in the trailing direction and the other facing. In most cases they appeared to be formerly Goods Lines, but as an economy the 'box at the other end had been taken out leaving them as dead-end sidings.

 

Incidentally, where a Refuge Siding is in the facing direction the buffer stop displays a white light, not red. (This can still be seen on the Reversing Siding for the Wensleydale branch at Northallerton)

 - however given most locos on the network are air only, a failure of a vac fitted train can be problematic.

 

No more so than the proliferation of units that nothing else will couple to...

 

such as failed 180s blocking the ECML for 2 - 3 hours

Sounds as if it's a bit lost...

....again

 

Had just left Newcastle with 15:59 KX, and at King Edward Bridge South Jn past a pair of GWR 5-car 800s heading north

 

On return, 20:00 from KX, past what seemed to be just one of them at Thirsk

Headlights are d*mm*d bright! 

Interesting, all the ones I recorded had a grey end, not the green. http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/standardabvan

 

Paul

Erm, apart perhaps from second in on bottom row?

So was the triangular aperture originally plated over, as-built? If so, what purpose did it serve in the first place?

I believe it was some sort of maintenance access panel, for changing compressors / exhausters or some such that wouldn't go through the cab.

Photos show them as being bolted on, not welded

They would 80 years ago too!

 

If this mid-1930s article about the LNER is any indication, to their contemporaries, the A3s were known as "Super-Pacifics".

 

In this article from the same source about the Flying Scotsman (train) 4472 of course gets a big mention, as  a "Pacific-type".

No confusion, that's actually correct...

 

The (Gresley) A1 Class, of which 4472 actually remained until post-war, was the original  "Pacific-Type"

The A3s, an improved design with higher boiler pressure were therefore referred to as the "Super-Pacifics"

 

Comments relating to the loco being named after the train service's actually a debatable point. AIUI, at the time 4472 came out 'flying scotsman' was only an unofficial nickname for the daily 10am KX / Edinburgh expresses, and the train title was only officially used from the first of the non-stop runs in 1928, hauled of course by 4472 - well, first by several minutes anyway - as the trains were 10am from KX and Edinburgh, there was of course another non-stop in the opposite direction at the same time - whether by chance or design, 4472's arrived first

Sounds as if it's a bit lost...

Best place for them, from what I hear

 

I've heard that the 45s were not originally built with the cylinders under the battery box.

 

 

None were, they were additional air reservoirs for train air brakes, so only present on conversion to duel brakes.

 Also a loco shouldn't have to hit the buffers, it's counted as a collision.

...and would probably move them

We are discussing the 800 performance north of Edinburgh at the moment but two questions have sprung to mind.

 

1. Have the power supply upgrades between Newcastle and Edinburgh been completed yet to allow regular Azuma operation.

 

2. One the EGIP project is completed and the wires extend to Dunblane, will the 800's be able to use the juice as far as Stirling.

 

Jamie

jamie,

 

1. As far as can be seen, not even started yet. It's also one of the upgrades not being delivered that's quoted by VTEC in ending the franchise. In fact, the power upgrade work in the Welwyn area, which you questioned over a year ago as having appeared abandoned for some time, has only recently re-commenced.

 

2. Don't know, but the real problems north of there anyway.

The youngest HST build Mk3's are 36 years old this year, with the oldest being about 42 years old.

 

The LHCS Mk3A's are of a similar vintage, but the final build of LHCS, the Mk3B's are younger at 30 - 33 years old.

 

A small number of LHCS Mk3's were converted for use in HST sets (I don't know how old these ones are?), but I don't think any of these are with, or have been with, GWR or VTEC.

The GC and XC sets spring to mind?

No doubt one of our number will have the answer to that.

 

 

.

 

Certainly the (now ex) GC sets, as spare HST stock was unavailable at the time

 

Don't know about the XC ones, which were re-introduced by Arriva after they took over there from Virgin

 

Given the talk of re-use of Mk4s, it's also worth noting that these are rapidly approaching 30 years

The elephant in the room here seems to be that the train would appear to be meeting its specification, somebody wrote that specification and if you write a specification then that is what the supplier will provide (or face a price for failure to deliver). This was a Daft program but presumably operators had some input or at least opportunity to comment on the performance aspects?

 

In terms of time, what is the expected difference on a route such as Edinburgh - Aberdeen?

Otherwise known as DaFT

It was, as you say their program, so they'll have written the specification. What notice, if any, they've taken from any operator input's obviously debatable, they seem to have told the operators this is what you're getting.

That is what the supplier will have provided, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise, they're not making modifications to correct the deficiencies themselves and their engineers on that Inverness run were, apparently, rather surprised and somewhat taken aback to be told their new trains are not as good as the HSTs. This spec is also what the supplier will charge a price for to alter for the it not coming up to scratch.

 

There's not yet been a test on the Aberdeen route, but the verdict on the Inverness run performance was something has to be done, and from NR apparently, a big no-no

Ken, 

various options are been looked at regards HST power cars and Mk4s, the equipment in the DVT can fated into the power car, the coupler are no real problem and the various bits on the toe can also go in the power car, the gangways are no great problem either.

 

Something like this perhaps? lol ; http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94506-class-800-updates/page-107 # 2660 / 2684

 

Regarding the gangways, if the DVT can be dispensed with and gangway connections into the power cars aren't required, then depending on the number of sets required perhaps putting a TOE on each end would provide a solution?

 

My sentence was 

 

What has been written elsewhere by people & respected journalists (so not Rail magazine) is that MK4s are being looked at as they are already PRM compliant by and large so don't need new toilets, new doors and CET tanks which would be needed on the Mk3s. Yes, cabling and other mods needed to either coaches or power cars but all in all, it was being seen as easier & cheaper. That said, nothing was signed off and it was very much fluid as DfT will be involved in any discussions \ decisions.

 

Yes, and my original reply did include 'etc'. It is though, still a lot more significant work than adjustments.

 

It is certainly a very fluid situation though with still nothing apparently decided on what sets will be running. I'd just recently heard, from someone I'd consider a reliable source, that the full HST fleet was to be retained, with just the two borrowed EMT sets going back to them. From what I've heard subsequently to these posts, is that this plan has run into difficulties with workshop capacity to now get the PRM compliance work done in time for the deadline, as they're now fully booked with the other sets that are being retained, so conversion of Mk4 stock is being considered.

Something does need to be sorted though, following the recent 800 test run to Inverness, as NR apparently viewed that 'performance' as a big no-no, or face the possibility of the north of Edinburgh services being transferred to Scotrail

The Inverness line in particular has long single track sections. Clearing those in good time is essential for the timetable to work, and finding a path for the London train to plod along much slower than the short & powerful HSTs around it can manage may cause significant headaches, and will at least limit the ability to fully exploit the power they have on tap.

Maybe they should try again with an 802. It'll probably still be slower than the 2+5 HSTs, but maybe not quite so embarrassingly so.

 

Yes agreed, but the EC aren't getting any 802s

 

That problem was always going to exist, even with the HST operated London train.

 

The current Virgin EC Inverness train is a 2+9 set, the new Scotrail trains will only be 2+4, lightning quick by comparison.

 

Whichever way you could choose to look at it, the entire timetable is going to have to be recast north of Edinburgh, that's if the super power aspect of the new shorter HSTs is to be exploited.

 

Which makes it even more critical when the 800s performance is significantly slower than that of the HST, to the point where it can become unacceptable

 

There is a problem in the short term with class 800s having to run significant distances on diesel power, when they should rather be running under wires, but clearly someone at the DfT has decided GW are just going to have to live with it, then why not, similarly on the EC where the delays have even led to a complete franchise renegotiation.

 

It all comes down to the delays in the electrification, in the end, not the shortcomings (or otherwise) of the new trains.

 

Presumably the class 800 is working out of the box, as specified (I've read nothing to the contrary), and that does mean reduced power on diesel.

 

However, apart from the short term issue, I'm still struggling to understand how this is any kind of a problem or how, in the end, it is going to be a significant showstopper in providing what will surely be a massively improved service.

 

On the EC it is not a short term problem, and has absolutely nothing to do with the delays in electrification, all of the EC routes where they were planned to run on electric were already electrified.

Or again, perhaps you would care to inform us when Aberdeen / Inverness are being electrified?

 

There's been nothing said to suggest that the trains aren't performing as specified, however whatever the reasons for their shortcomings, how can you suggest otherwise when they're clearly not performing as required on routes they were always going to require to work on diesel and which, again, was the reason for there being bi-modes.

 

It's hardly a massively improved service for passengers expecting shiny new trains who may find themselves still on the same "clapped out" 40 year old ones, or on 'even more clapped out' 30 year old replacements, or even possibly, have no train at all and find they have to change trains at Edinburgh, and it's well known just how loathed the average potential passenger is to changing trains en-route particularly one where many have large amounts of luggage.

Three or four class 800 trains per day to Aberdeen and one to Inverness on routes that are about to otherwise become super HST operated.

 

So a small number of trains may be slower north of Edinburgh (though noting the London trains all make fewer stops than the internal services, so maybe not) but overall the PAX should experience a transformed service.

 

I don't deny the class 800 diesel power problem, just struggling to see how it's significant and is going to be any kind of a big deal, most especially for the PAX, who for the most part are only going to experience considerable improvement over their existing services. If indeed your average normal even notices the new trains, trust me, I've seen some try to get on steam charter trains and not notice the difference.

 

OK the new trains may present the timetable planners with a few headaches, here and there, but that's their job, so presumably a nice problem to have.

 

Ultimately the class 800 should and will be judged by their electric performance, not short bits of country end diesel running, or a few longer bits of diesel running just a few times a day.

 

Remembering that many times in the past, it has been proposed that the North of Edinburgh trains could (should) be a lot slower, as part of the XC franchise and to improve their usefulness, considering the largest proportion of the passengers don't go all the way to London and given that it's mainly been politics that keeps those trains the way they are.

 

For many years, the Inverness day train was the Clansman, via the WCML (even including via the West Midlands) and in no particular hurry and arguably a much more useful service.

 

So a few trains a day north of Edinburgh may (or should) be slower, too far from London to bother about as that seems to be the only timings that concern you, as long as the timings into London make up for it (if they do) it doesn't matter about earlier delays, even though you also say not all passengers are traveling to London?

 

Have you seen the passenger loadings on these trains you're commenting on? They're often actually the busiest trains on the route (including 'peak' times) and do in fact carry significant numbers of through London passengers, especially at holiday times as they're very popular with tourists and often fully booked. So much so in fact, that the Aberdeen / Inverness services are, south of Edinburgh, the only one's that we're advised not to travel on on our passes, and at certain Holiday times they're actually restricted from carry passengers between any stations south of Edinburgh.

The performance of the 800 to Inverness means that, far from the 'considerable improvements' in service passengers have been led to expect 'other options are being considered' (discussed more on the future of HSTs thread), or even, casting into doubt the future of the service.

These services are very popular, and suggestions to cut them have always drawn large opposition (and not just from politicians) but you would seem to be happy to see the Chieftain go the same way as the Clansman

Is that 20mph slower average journey speed, or maximum speed? One is more significant than the other.

 

On the climbs, possibly even more significant given the topography of the line. Either way, significant enough to put the future of the service in doubt

It was a nine car 800/1 unit that was used on that test run (presumably because that's it for testing currently on the ECML and beyond). I don't know if the intention is to run 800/1s on that route but they will be down on power compared to the five car units. We don't know yet the extent those are up to or short of the task on that route.

We don't know yet if it's planed to use 5 or 9 car sets (or any at all at that speed!)

 

At a quick calculation though, the difference is only about 33 hp per car so fairly insignificant, and probably less so than the fact that's comparing the performance of the 800 running empty to that of an in service HST

All this extra speed is very well, but is also has negative effects in that the minimum headway between trains has to increase to cover the greater stopping distance, which in turn requires the trains to be longer if they are to maintain the performance in terms of passengers per hour. Longer trains then create problems once they are on the existing rails, when they take up more line space and are slower in clearing conflict points.

 

I remain unconvinced that the trains on HS2 need to be so much faster than the existing, certainly when the UK is so much smaller than th emajor European countries, where higher speed makes a useful reduction in journey times.

 

Jim

 

Headways on a dedicated high speed line shoouldn't I think be a great issue. Yes the trains will be further apart, but they'll cover that distance that much quicker, so time gaps shouldn't be affected as much.

 

What does definitely create headway problems is what we're attempting to do at present - running high speed trains on an increasingly very busy mixed traffic railway, with different trains having greatly different speeds and stopping patterns, hence running times on the ECML for example are generally slower now than under BR. The headway requirement between a stopping passenger and a high speed train's massive compared to that of two high speed trains. Just try traveling on ECML high speed trains, and see how often you're checked behind a unit stopping at Welwyn North (on a double track section) - there was even a serious suggestion in GNER days to have that station closed, and the ECMLs a lot busier these days

Ken, 

various options are been looked at regards HST power cars and Mk4s, the equipment in the DVT can fated into the power car, the coupler are no real problem and the various bits on the toe can also go in the power car, the gangways are no great problem either.

Thanks, and yes no doubt it's technically possible, but still a lot more work involved than some cabling adjustments as suggested by the post I was replying to.

Could there be problems now getting the necessary conversion work on the HST stock done before the deadline, with everyone else who's keeping them already having the work booked in?

 

Apparently, the verdict on the 800s test run to Inverness was that something has to be done, and NRs view of it was oh

And with Thameslink 2000 or whatever it's called these days, don't we get a mechanism to propagate delays (or timetable changes?) from the ECML to the south of London too?

 

(We apologise for the delays in services at Brighton due to cows on the line at Aviemore?)

Given the long standing train regulation priorities on the route...

more likely to be the other way round!