There is the possibility that the bi-model trains will be passed around a bit during their lifetime being replaced by all electric as an operator no longer needs them. That or a few maybe retained for when there are problems with the wires/engineering works/diversions onto non electrified lines.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Great Western IEP order - Are there too many Bi-modes ?
- Thread starter PhilipW
- Start date
- Status
There is the possibility that the bi-model trains will be passed around a bit during their lifetime being replaced by all electric as an operator no longer needs them. That or a few maybe retained for when there are problems with the wires/engineering works/diversions onto non electrified lines.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
Could also use them to re-engine older diesel rolling stock with a cleaner more fuel efficent engine while the IEP continues life as an EMU.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,191
If that's possible, I like the idea though.
some good reading here...
personally i hate the idea of a fragmented half electric and half diesel railway
which FGW will become...
if this whole package is not correctly purchased now at this stage with the right number of trains at the right length needed then the fiasco will be like when virgin x-country and its 4 car voyager long-distance runs first started, overcrowding and inflexible formations such as 2 x 4-cars coupled together and no corridor connections and more.
you do not need those type of retrograde steps when building a new fleet surely?
when FGW first started Adelantes (180's) it was a disaster! (in 2012
with a re-introduction of them that there are still teething troubles)
passengers howled at the bosses of FGW back then and continue to do so.
this new railway has to be really planned correctly from the start and it is the lines future at stake here with some of the biggest changes since steam days.
whatever the HST does now is what needs to be included for the new railway and more. no question. and really no compromises. its just plain to daft to fiddle with a fragmented train set.
recent improvements have shown on the minor lines that passengers have been attracted to using the services more and more.
this really has to be thought through so carefully as i would hate to see
the great FGW become a sort of Voyager territory and/or retrograde set-up
on the cheap option. its plain wrong.
its quite simple, whatever the HST does now is what you do and more for growth in the future...
personally i hate the idea of a fragmented half electric and half diesel railway
which FGW will become...
if this whole package is not correctly purchased now at this stage with the right number of trains at the right length needed then the fiasco will be like when virgin x-country and its 4 car voyager long-distance runs first started, overcrowding and inflexible formations such as 2 x 4-cars coupled together and no corridor connections and more.
you do not need those type of retrograde steps when building a new fleet surely?
when FGW first started Adelantes (180's) it was a disaster! (in 2012
with a re-introduction of them that there are still teething troubles)
passengers howled at the bosses of FGW back then and continue to do so.
this new railway has to be really planned correctly from the start and it is the lines future at stake here with some of the biggest changes since steam days.
whatever the HST does now is what needs to be included for the new railway and more. no question. and really no compromises. its just plain to daft to fiddle with a fragmented train set.
recent improvements have shown on the minor lines that passengers have been attracted to using the services more and more.
this really has to be thought through so carefully as i would hate to see
the great FGW become a sort of Voyager territory and/or retrograde set-up
on the cheap option. its plain wrong.
its quite simple, whatever the HST does now is what you do and more for growth in the future...
Oh dear, you don't like it. Well, we can't electrify the entire network at one fell swoop and the further you get from London and from key freight arteries, the worse the cost benefit ratio for electrification looks, so it will be a long, gradual process.
2x4 Voyager formations are actually quite good at handling XC passenger numbers (not that I would defend the things in other aspects), just that there aren't enough of them in existence to allow 2x4 or 4+5 to operate on most services (or rather legs of services) when and where they are needed. And how is the ability to couple/uncouple sets to match demand inflexible? Quite the opposite. So long as there are enough seats available to accommodate everyone in the first place, does the average passenger care about whether or not there are corridor connections?
Yes, I have complained about there not being a modest number of longer bi-modes planned for the busiest services on the likes of the Cotswold line, but for most of the day, the ability to couple and uncouple sets at Oxford, to reflect loadings east and west of there, makes perfect sense. But 2x5 in the peaks with short platforms west of Oxford doesn't.
180s a disaster? Not when they work they're not, reliability has always been their Achilles heel, but so long as they keep running, passengers love them, and with the old seats still in place, they are nicer than FGW HSTs inside these days - and a country mile ahead of Turbos which, for the past three years, were the only other option for Oxford and Cotswold services. I certainly haven't seen anyone howling in recent weeks, just looks of disappointment if a Turbo appears instead of a 180.
Hi Jimm and thanks for your reply, i will just add my comments against yours in quote below in reply (next to each para) cheers!
from rog,
well you said it lol...''180s a disaster? Not when they WORK they're not, reliability has always been their Achilles heel''
personally i do hope the latest 2012 refurb does see them start to operate nicely and behave and agree they are better than a Turbo if
they work ok.
all i am saying here as you agree too, is that this project needs really careful planning before romping off to a train supplier and placing a possibly ill-conceived order that in a few years time will be chopped and changed to death if that initial planning is flawed.
i hope you understand where i am coming from here.
Oh dear, you don't like it. Well, we can't electrify the entire network at one fell swoop and the further you get from London and from key freight arteries, the worse the cost benefit ratio for electrification looks, so it will be a long, gradual process.
from rog
agreed i do not like it but i'm not having a coronary about it, just think
it should have great care to be done right at this early stage and not the to and froing we have had since pv'station on many schemes. i am sure you will agree.
2x4 Voyager formations are actually quite good at handling XC passenger numbers (not that I would defend the things in other aspects), just that there aren't enough of them in existence to allow 2x4 or 4+5 to operate on most services (or rather legs of services) when and where they are needed. And how is the ability to couple/uncouple sets to match demand inflexible? Quite the opposite. So long as there are enough seats available to accommodate everyone in the first place, does the average passenger care about whether or not there are corridor connections?
from rog,
well i understand that maybe the case but surely a train manager would find it easier to get through the whole train and also for
catering access? yes it is easier to formation trains of course.
also when XC started it was not often 2 x 4 cars joined up...that came later and you quite rightly state now ''there are not enough of them around now''...which leads as back to the beginning of this article.lol
Yes, I have complained about there not being a modest number of longer bi-modes planned for the busiest services on the likes of the Cotswold line, but for most of the day, the ability to couple and uncouple sets at Oxford, to reflect loadings east and west of there, makes perfect sense. But 2x5 in the peaks with short platforms west of Oxford doesn't.
from rog,
yes and as has been said if no corridor connections then that is inflexible
if that was to happen with 2 x 5 cars.
180s a disaster? Not when they work they're not, reliability has always been their Achilles heel, but so long as they keep running, passengers love them, and with the old seats still in place, they are nicer than FGW HSTs inside these days - and a country mile ahead of Turbos which, for the past three years, were the only other option for Oxford and Cotswold services. I certainly haven't seen anyone howling in recent weeks, just looks of disappointment if a Turbo appears instead of a 180.
from rog,
well you said it lol...''180s a disaster? Not when they WORK they're not, reliability has always been their Achilles heel''
personally i do hope the latest 2012 refurb does see them start to operate nicely and behave and agree they are better than a Turbo if
they work ok.
all i am saying here as you agree too, is that this project needs really careful planning before romping off to a train supplier and placing a possibly ill-conceived order that in a few years time will be chopped and changed to death if that initial planning is flawed.
i hope you understand where i am coming from here.
Quoting would get messy, so I'll just make the following points:
This is hardly an early stage, IEP has been in the works forever, the shape of the proposed fleet has changed so often I can't even remember how it started out. DfT is hardly "romping off" to a manufacturer. Agility/Hitachi was chosen as preferred bidder about 15 months ago and the first trains are still probably three years away.
What is currently proposed looks pretty near what is required for GW routes, bar a modest number of longer bi-modes which will be needed for peak duties on the Cotswold Line and to Gloucester/Cheltenham - unless someone is going to lengthen an awful lot of platforms, try to squeeze a lot of extra trains along the last two single-line sections to spread out passenger loadings on five-car trains or redouble the rest of the Cotswold Line to at least make running those extra trains easier. All of which will be a lot more expensive than shuffling a few train formations.
When Voyagers first arrived at XC, before the operation princess timetable, they frequently appeared in coupled 2x4 formations in place of HSTs and 47s with hauled stock. The train managers coped somehow.
And if corridor connections are so important, how has the GW coped with all the coupled, corridor-less Turbos running up and down the Thames Valley for 20 years now, some with train managers and catering trolleys on board, without the sky falling in? Of course the ability to lengthen/shorten formations is flexible, whether or not there is a bit of rubber and a door at the front of the sets.
This is hardly an early stage, IEP has been in the works forever, the shape of the proposed fleet has changed so often I can't even remember how it started out. DfT is hardly "romping off" to a manufacturer. Agility/Hitachi was chosen as preferred bidder about 15 months ago and the first trains are still probably three years away.
What is currently proposed looks pretty near what is required for GW routes, bar a modest number of longer bi-modes which will be needed for peak duties on the Cotswold Line and to Gloucester/Cheltenham - unless someone is going to lengthen an awful lot of platforms, try to squeeze a lot of extra trains along the last two single-line sections to spread out passenger loadings on five-car trains or redouble the rest of the Cotswold Line to at least make running those extra trains easier. All of which will be a lot more expensive than shuffling a few train formations.
When Voyagers first arrived at XC, before the operation princess timetable, they frequently appeared in coupled 2x4 formations in place of HSTs and 47s with hauled stock. The train managers coped somehow.
And if corridor connections are so important, how has the GW coped with all the coupled, corridor-less Turbos running up and down the Thames Valley for 20 years now, some with train managers and catering trolleys on board, without the sky falling in? Of course the ability to lengthen/shorten formations is flexible, whether or not there is a bit of rubber and a door at the front of the sets.
Regarding the Thames Valley, in Rail which arrived today it states that DfT have specified that the slow lines should have a linespeed of 125mph and NR have stated that the EMUs must be capable of 110mph so this rules out using the 319s now on the main lines out of Paddington (unless they are upgraded which sounds expensive). Rail mentioned that the electrification on the main line is specified to be capable of 140mph running.
mallard
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 1,304
Actually, yes they do. They wouldn't word it that way, but the average passenger cares when they get off an overcrowded train only to see several near-empty carriages on the rear that they could have used if only they could walk through the train, they care when they hear an announcement telling them that, for their station, they need to be in the other half of the train and they have to walk down the platform with all their luggage, in the rain, they care when they can't get a drink because the trolley is in the other half of the train and they care when they can't find their reserved seat because the carriage is in the other unit (especially if an over-officious guard is enforcing the advance T&Cs to the letter and makes them buy a new ticket... at least I haven't heard of that one happening yet, give it time).
anthony263
Established Member
Well the was a suggestion in Rail a few months ago that new emu's would be ordered for use on electric services around Reading & the Thames Valley with more class 319's going elsewhere including Bristol for use on electric services to Cardiff.
I wonder that with the east-west railink being wired if we will see a return of a Bristol - Oxford service with trains being extended to Bedford.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
Ive always thought the idea that the 319's would be used there rather than new stock ordered unlikely, but then Im a jaded Northener.
anthony263
Established Member
Well I can understand especially since it does seem like the Cardiff Valleys will be getting some class 313's & 315's rather than new emu's.
If they do get the GW new emu's to use around Reading & the Thames Valley I wouldnt be surprised to see some class 319's remaining with GW and being used between Cardiff & Bristol TM perhaps with the frequency of service being increased from every 30 minutes to every 20 minutes.
It would then seem to make sense to send more 319s to the North West, and cascade some 323s to London Midland, allowing more 6 car operation on the Cross City line. However that of course brings us back to platform lengths in the North West.
Nope, as has been mentioned many times the current 350 order is an add on to the LM order. The design does not meet current safety standards, and it would be too much of a stretch to have an add on as large as the current fleet! 380s perhaps, but not 350s.
Nope, as has been mentioned many times the current 350 order is an add on to the LM order. The design does not meet current safety standards, and it would be too much of a stretch to have an add on as large as the current fleet! 380s perhaps, but not 350s.
Follow-on to Thameslink or Crossrail fleets then? Or would the different number of vehicles per carriage,and different spec requirements make that implausible too?
I suppose if the worst came to the worst Bombardier could build something for the GW
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,347
Its pretty simple to write a bid that only one company can bid for.
For diesels you specify multiple working with Sprinters, and I am pretty sure you could do something similar for electrics if you really wanted.
For diesels you specify multiple working with Sprinters, and I am pretty sure you could do something similar for electrics if you really wanted.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
That wouldnt have any effect, Bombardier would have to hand over the communication codes to its rivals as the Dft would have to specify the communication specification specifically. Patent law stipulates that you have to license propietary technology to rivals at a reasonable rate if they need to use it.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Why would you want to write a specification for a brand new batch of units (rather than a small follow on order) that only one company had a realistic chance of bidding for?
You might as well just give them a blank cheque and hope for the best
Rather have a 26 metre At-200. Considering all the route is accepting 26 metre SET, might as well make GW a 26 metre carriage railway. Plus from 2015 there is a brand new train factory in County Durham with 730 people to build trains!
Note the AT-200 meets all EU safety standards and does not require the front door connector to be slanted as per the 380!
http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/at-200-regional_46.html
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,347
It is not so much whether Bombardier would have to licence the proprietary technology, but the fact is that Siemens would have to completley re-engineer the TMS system they have to use that multiple working equipment.
THis would put the bid they submit through the roof and thus make them effectively unable to bid.
To ensure that more than one manufacturer survives in the UK, and to ensure that the fleet we got was similar mechanically to the vast majority of the diesel units that are still in service. (A turbostar has more in common with a Sprinter than a Pennine Desiro).
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
So would Bombardier, the Turbostars were compatible with the 15x but very poorly, the full range of Turbostar commands can not be transmitted through an intermediate Sprinter and their engine performance is limited to match whatever their coupled too meaning a 17x-15x-17x formation would be limited to the 15x performance. The very simple communication of Sprinters can easily be emulated through a software translation matrix as Bombardier are doing, all any other manufacturer has to do is request the source code for the Turbostars and 95% of the work is done for them, while totally different trains modern software would be near identical due to use of same hardware and common standards.
Bombardier did exactly what your saying is financially impossible when they made the Turbostars compatible with the Sprinters.
Bi-mode Voyagers would be cascadable. However IEPs, thanks to 26m vehicles, will not be cascadable. They are stuck where they are cleared, unless somebody throws more millions into guage clearance. In my opinon the guage clearance for 26m coaches, if it is done at all, should be limited to the electrified lines, beyond the wires you need a different sort of train which fits the existing infrastructure. Bi-mode + 26m coaches makes IEP even more of a nonsense, because of this Intercity 125s are likely to be running under the wires from Paddington to Swansea to serve Pembroke Dock (they are not going to clear Pembrokeshire for IEP apparently).
As you say, corridor connections are important. In my opinion, units without corridor connections are only suitable for working in multiple in service if all the following conditions (and probably some more I have forgotten) are met:
- There is no portion working - all coaches run the full length of the service
- Catering and revenue protection are duplicated in each unit
- All platforms on the route are long enough to enable passengers to board&alight any unit in the formation (avoiding the risk of being in a unit which stops outside the platform - only one door or each unit need be useable but wherever you are on the train you must be able to reach a door that opens onto the platform)
As for GW electric suburban units, some 377s would do nicely I think (give Wales some 3-car ones for the 6-car ValleyLines routes while you're at it, and 4-car ones on Swansea/Maesteg - Bristol/Ebbw Vale services).
Last edited:
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,347
The 28 3 carriage Class 377/3s could come in very handy on residual post Thameslink Programme Moorgate trains, as I assume they are dual voltage capable and would fit into the tunnels. (The end doors meet the required evacuation specifications right? As Class 377s were used on Thameslink).
That would allow some Outer Suburban trains to run into Moorgate in a new timetable and would enable all non Class 700 operated Thameslink trains north of the river to be run using a single class of units.
The Class 313s could be sent to the Coastway or similar or be rebuilt alongside the Cl314s and Cl315s into a uniform fleet of AC multiple units for newly electrified low speed routes.
That would allow some Outer Suburban trains to run into Moorgate in a new timetable and would enable all non Class 700 operated Thameslink trains north of the river to be run using a single class of units.
The Class 313s could be sent to the Coastway or similar or be rebuilt alongside the Cl314s and Cl315s into a uniform fleet of AC multiple units for newly electrified low speed routes.
PhilipW
Member
Some good points Rhylgaled has just made. I agree with him.
In the current ediition of 'Rail' magazine (No 702), it is stated (page 6) that of the 21 electric 9-car units ordered, the contract is for 18 to be available for daily service.
Let's look at the numbers again.
-- 12 sets needed for Paddington-Bristol service at 4 sets each for the 3 services per hour. (The 4th service per hour is assumed to be bi-mode so it can go on to Weston).
-- 5 sets needed for the hourly Paddington-Cardiff service.
So already 17 sets are used up leaving just one for the hourly Swansea service. This service will therefore have to be mainly bi-mode, perhaps working in pairs with one 5-car set detached and working onwards from Cardiff. I calculate that the one remaining 9-car electric plus 10 bi-mode 5-car sets would be needed.
These bi-modes will be working under the wires 100% of the time, hardly what they are designed for. I take the point made previously about bi-modes giving the operator flexibility in planning, but at £600,000 extra per car to built (£2.8mill versus £2.2mill) that makes an initial extra outlay of £30mill to build (50 times £0.6mill) plus extra leasing costs, this really is spending money for no discernable benefit.
So in my opinion, 'Yes' too many bi-modes have been ordered. Instead of 36 bi-modes it should have been 10 electric and 26 bi-modes.
As they say, only time will tell as to who is right and who is wrong. Because of their 26-metre length which restricts the ability to cascade them, they might be running on all electric lines for many many years to come.
In the current ediition of 'Rail' magazine (No 702), it is stated (page 6) that of the 21 electric 9-car units ordered, the contract is for 18 to be available for daily service.
Let's look at the numbers again.
-- 12 sets needed for Paddington-Bristol service at 4 sets each for the 3 services per hour. (The 4th service per hour is assumed to be bi-mode so it can go on to Weston).
-- 5 sets needed for the hourly Paddington-Cardiff service.
So already 17 sets are used up leaving just one for the hourly Swansea service. This service will therefore have to be mainly bi-mode, perhaps working in pairs with one 5-car set detached and working onwards from Cardiff. I calculate that the one remaining 9-car electric plus 10 bi-mode 5-car sets would be needed.
These bi-modes will be working under the wires 100% of the time, hardly what they are designed for. I take the point made previously about bi-modes giving the operator flexibility in planning, but at £600,000 extra per car to built (£2.8mill versus £2.2mill) that makes an initial extra outlay of £30mill to build (50 times £0.6mill) plus extra leasing costs, this really is spending money for no discernable benefit.
So in my opinion, 'Yes' too many bi-modes have been ordered. Instead of 36 bi-modes it should have been 10 electric and 26 bi-modes.
As they say, only time will tell as to who is right and who is wrong. Because of their 26-metre length which restricts the ability to cascade them, they might be running on all electric lines for many many years to come.
These bi-modes will be working under the wires 100% of the time assuming that:
a) the timetables/final destinations served do not change
b) all the elctricfication announced is built & ready from the time of the first train delivery
c) there isn't anywhere else at all which could run 26m stock (either with or without minor improvements) which would benefit from bi-modes (i.e. the few trains a day that terminate at Exeter or Taunton)
PhilipW
Member
All true, no doubt, but you are missing my basic point.
With wires up to Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea, the 18 available electric 9-car sets are not sufficient to run the announced services. They will have to be supplemented by some bi-mode sets running under the wires all day.
In my estimation either additional 9-cars sets should have been ordered or about 10 of the 36 bi-modes should have been all electric.
tbtc
Veteran Member
If the ECML and GWML are going to be cleared for 26m then its not unrealistic that you could have 26m bi-modes on the XC services between the two (a lot of main lines won't need any clearance work because they are straight enough already - its going to be more of an issue on rural branches)
Your second point is very important - a lot of people are assuming that all of the wires will be up (all the way to Swansea) before the first IEP trains are running.
Imagine the headlines if we had the electric trains sat idle whilst we waited for infrastructure delays to be ironed out?
Bi-mode gives us the luxury of getting new trains in operation sooner
But why bother clearing XC for 26m coaches (their routes aren't as straight as the GWML and ECML) when their existing Voyagers can be made into 5-car and 7-car bi-modes? Would you scrap some Voyagers and give XC cascaded IEPs?
So we have new trains a few months to a year sooner but then have to cart diesel engines around 100% under the wires for the next 29 years at least? Not sensible, esspecially since each diesel engine supposedly costs £250k, over the fleet that adds up to many tens of millions. Better to wait until the wires are up and have fully electric trains. Do you pay the capital and long term financial costs, and the enviromental costs, just to get new trains a few months earlier?
The idea behind the bi-mode was so all the rural branches could keep their direct London services wasn't it? But when some rural branches can't use the bi-modes anyway due to route clearance the bi-mode IEP plan looks really, really messed up. Using 7-car bi-mode 22x units on PAD - Worcester/Hereford (and PAD - Cheltenham but it would be better if that was wired) would save on guage clearance quite a bit and IEP could be all 9-car electrics.
tbtc
Veteran Member
The main XC line from Doncaster to Bristol (i.e. between the 26m capable ECML and the 26m capable GWML) isn't very bendy.
Plus XC clearly needs more capacity, and additional trains on it would allow doubling up of Voyagers (or the reintroduction of various "lost" XC services from Operation Princess days).
If all Voyagers are extended to seven coach with bi-mode then that'd be great (the same bi-mode that you are against for new build), but its interesting that there's been no news of Project Thor when all the infrastructure news was announced - things seem to have gone quiet in this respect.
As has previously been discussed, the diesel engines will be removable and capable of inserting into other trains.
If bimode IEP are introduced in 2017 (as is planned) then it may still take a couple of years to electrify all of the proposed GWML lines (assuming of course that everything goes to plan in terms of electrification...).
- Status