Future of the Intercity 125s

[ainsworth74]

What you mean like the electrification copes with it here and here?

 

[HSTEd]

Electrification west of Exeter will have to contend with this at Dawlish at high tide when the wind is from the south-east. Video

You have not seen the pictures/videos of the railway line at Saltcoats then?

Where the waves break over the OLE.

Also that video of the Dawlish Sea Wall makes the track look odd? Have they switched to some sort of slab track there?
If not what have they done and are there any plans to move to a full blown slab track formation? It might solve some of the issues associated with all that salt water.

 

[JamesRowden]

The spare portion then sits in Plymouth for a few minutes while the train from Cornwall comes and joins it

How do you turn around a unit like that in a few minutes? Presumably by not bothering to clean it after it's journey down from London?

If I remind you of my (first) service pattern idea for the 222s (and the IEP semi-fast):

My idea for the service pattern (all day):
1tph Paddington-Exeter (semi-fast) (IEP)
1tph Paddington-Plymouth(Train splits)-Penzance (Fast) (222)

Present Journey Times
Paddington-Penzance (5h05m-5h36m)
Plymouth-Penzance (1h56m-2h00m)

Required Stock (in service at peak)
I think that the average of 24-55 minutes (plus any time saved through automatic doors and greater acceleration [when compared to HSTs] minus time taken to split/join sets at Plymouth) to be spent at a terminus might be just enough to clean the train and maintain robustness of the timetable. This would mean that there would be 12 trains at any time operating this service. The present journey time between Plymouth and Penzance of exactly or just under 2 hours fits splitting trains at Plymouth perfectly.

The time spent by the unit at Penzance (and subsequntly Plymouth due to the journey between them being about 2 hours) could be engineered to work well. Based on the timings of the HSTs, an average of 24-55 minutes dwell at Plymouth/Penzance and Paddington is necesary (if 12 trains operate the route). The dwell time could be set as 30 minutes at Plymouth (and Penzance). This would mean that the country-bound service would leave the set at the platform that it stops at and then 30 minutes later the London-bound service would stop at the same platform, join with the set in the platform, and leave for London 30 minutes before the next countrybound service would arrive.

Also my second idea of 2 tph (222s) between Plymouth and Paddington which does not involve splitting produced slightly more capacity than my first.

 

[LE Greys]

Let me agree with all those who said the wires should go at least to Plymouth (I would extend them to Penzance and do all the branches, but that's another matter). Exeter ended up with more commuter lines not so that they could serve Exeter, but so that through trains could run to London, so it's an historical accident. Being the 'crossroads' of the GWR and LSWR helped as well. There's always a chance that the Gunnislake branch could reach Tavistock one day, but we don't really know.

As I see it, it makes good operational sense to wire all the way to Plymouth, for the reasons explained above.

Indeed, you can fly on a business-class only service to New York JFK from City Airport. Although as the plane can't carry enough fuel for the journey and take off (due to the short runway and steep climb), it has to stop at Shannon to refuel.[*] (Travelling the other way, it can fly non-stop.)

[*] With the added advantage that passengers can clear US customs & immigration during the refuelling stop.

Thanks for the wonderful image that produced. Here's a similar one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If I remind you of my (first) service pattern idea for the 222s (and the IEP semi-fast):



The time spent by the unit at Penzance (and subsequntly Plymouth due to the journey between them being about 2 hours) could be engineered to work well. Based on the timings of the HSTs, an average of 24-55 minutes dwell at Plymouth/Penzance and Paddington is necesary (if 12 trains operate the route). The dwell time could be set as 30 minutes at Plymouth (and Penzance). This would mean that the country-bound service would leave the set at the platform that it stops at and then 30 minutes later the London-bound service would stop at the same platform, join with the set in the platform, and leave for London 30 minutes before the next countrybound service would arrive.

Also my second idea of 2 tph (222s) between Plymouth and Paddington which does not involve splitting produced slightly more capacity than my first.

If the 222s could tilt, that might be a massive improvement. Expensive, of course, but tilt would take lumps out of journey times along there.

 

[The Ham]

How do you turn around a unit like that in a few minutes? Presumably by not bothering to clean it after it's journey down from London?

I said that the split would take a few minutes and then it would wait another few minuets for the train from Cornwall and then a few minutes to couple back up again, all the time staff can be working on cleaning it (emptying bins and clearing rubbish). I have seen that happen whilst the train goes along (thinking long distance XC services), so at a predefined station all that happens is that several sacks get chucked off and the train still looks acceptable to passengers.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One reason that IEP might not be going to Plymouth from day one, is that they don't want to make the mistake that they made with the Voyagers at Dawlish, so expect testing of them through there before they run beyond Exeter.

 

[jopsuk]

[*] With the added advantage that passengers can clear US customs & immigration during the refuelling stop.

This is now only available on the first of the two flights a day, as US customs have cut the facility at Shannon to a single shift rather than the two required to cover both flights (I think there's still one or two flights that originate at Shannon use it too, and private flights can use it)

 

[tbtc]

Exeter has the better Wetherspoons, certainly the larger one I might not be able to talk about airports or the preferences of global busineses, but on the subject of Wetherspoons, I can be relied upon to be pretty definitive.

The one with the massive window? One of the best that one - none of the Plymouth ones come close

The Torbay trains connect with trains to Plymouth, quite a lot of the reason for not having direct trains from Torbay to Plymouth is that it would require a reversal at Newton Abbot and would miss out Teignmouth and Dawlish, makes more sense to run them from Paignton to Exmouth and return instead with decent connections at Newton Abbot for stations to Penzance, which is exactly what we currently have. Having to change trains with a 5-10 minute connection on a local trip from Plymouth to Torquay is no big deal and to the passenger feels nothing like the idea of not having as many direct trains to London...

So it's okay for all of these people commuting daily from Paignton to Plymouth to have to change but not for the lower number of people going from Plymouth to London to change trains?

Or do more people do Plymouth - London than do Paignton - Plymouth each day?

Exactly - my point is not that Plymouth should get wires, its that if it's decided that it shouldn't then frankly there is no point wiring from Reading to Westbury. That section of line either needs to be done completely (Well, as far as Plymouth) or not at all. Not at all (or 'not in the near future') would seem like the best choice economically

There are local trains from Reading to Newbury etc, so some electrification west of Reading makes sense.

But people in Plymouth complaining about electrification "only" to Exeter is a bit like the howls of protest in Swansea about the initial plan to "only" electrify as far as Cardiff - even though Plymouth/ Swansea would be no worse off under such a plan, people can't stand the idea of the place along the line getting an improvement that "we" aren't getting.

My points in this thread are against the concept of wiring only as far as Exeter and then expecting people to change trains. It is this I disagree with, not the idea that most of Devon won't get wires anytime soon[/QUOTE]

 

[HSTEd]

Once you have gone as far as Plymouth or Exeter, it can't be that expensive to push for Penzance and eliminate an island of diesel services.

Speeds are low, power requirements are correspondingly low and there are plenty of grid taps available along the route.

 

[starrymarkb]

London City Airport is capable of hosting international jet powered flights and is not limited only to turboprops to other parts of the UK It would soon lose all it's passengers if it was!

Not when it first opened. The only aircraft permitted for the first few years were Dash 7 turboprops. Eventually the runway was extended and the glide slope reduced (to a still very steep 5.5deg)to allow for BAe 146s to provide a Jet service... Fokker 28s and 70s were the only other jets permitted for a while..

The current Cityflyer Embraer E-Jets and the JFK Airbus A318s have a special mod to allow the spoilers to deploy during the steep approach (normally they are locked down during approach). Aircraft with out the 'Steep Approach' mod are not permitted...

 

[tbtc]

Once you have gone as far as Plymouth or Exeter, it can't be that expensive to push for Penzance and eliminate an island of diesel services.

Speeds are low, power requirements are correspondingly low and there are plenty of grid taps available along the route.

You're probably talking about seventy five miles, plus you'd need to do roughly fifteen miles to Newquay too (or cut the popular summer weekend trains from further afield). And what about the other branches?

But if you are going to wire up around a hundred miles of track then there are surely a lot of places elsewhere in the UK with much more frequent diesel services that could be "saved" with that amount of electrification?

Is wiring roughly a hundred miles of Cornish railway better than wiring the same amount of DMU lines around Manchester/ Leeds (say the Harrogate loop, the Southport line and the Warrington Central route)? You could maybe do the Fife Circle and the Stirling triangle? Or Uckfield, Marshlink and the North Downs?

All about the opportunity cost.

 

[LE Greys]

You're probably talking about seventy five miles, plus you'd need to do roughly fifteen miles to Newquay too (or cut the popular summer weekend trains from further afield). And what about the other branches?

But if you are going to wire up around a hundred miles of track then there are surely a lot of places elsewhere in the UK with much more frequent diesel services that could be "saved" with that amount of electrification?

Is wiring roughly a hundred miles of Cornish railway better than wiring the same amount of DMU lines around Manchester/ Leeds (say the Harrogate loop, the Southport line and the Warrington Central route)? You could maybe do the Fife Circle and the Stirling triangle? Or Uckfield, Marshlink and the North Downs?

All about the opportunity cost.

That's not really a fair choice. In fact, it's closer to the same mistake BR made by not doing the Aberdeen Road when they did the ECML. Worse in fact, because they didn't end up with an hourly diesel service doing 200-odd miles under the wires. Not only does it make poor operational sense, NR come out of it looking silly. Note that I'd also do St Ives, Falmouth, Looe and Gunnislake/Tavistock and all the ones you've suggested.

 

[sprinterguy]

The one with the massive window? One of the best that one - none of the Plymouth ones come close

Yeah that's the one. It's got a "St Pancras trainshed" sort of a feel to it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You have not seen the pictures/videos of the railway line at Saltcoats then?

Where the waves break over the OLE.

I don't think that the difference in conditions between Dawlish and Saltcoats is that marked that what works for one location wouldn't work for the other. The wires and catenary at Saltcoats still gets a damn good soaking in salt water:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...avy-rain-batter-parts-of-Britain.html?image=4

Also that video of the Dawlish Sea Wall makes the track look odd? Have they switched to some sort of slab track there?

Googling a couple of images suggests that they have installed some sort of continuous covering within the four foot, with ballast still used in the cess and the six foot. I wonder whether it is a form of slab track, or just some sort of protective covering in an attempt to stop ballast being washed out from between the sleepers?

 

[starrymarkb]

I think a lot of the objections to the Sea Wall being knitted is because the knitting will have to be pretty sturdy (I believe Saltcoats uses OLE specified for 50kV to give extra insulation) and this might ruin photography

 

[Kali]

Is wiring roughly a hundred miles of Cornish railway better than wiring the same amount of DMU lines around Manchester/ Leeds (say the Harrogate loop, the Southport line and the Warrington Central route)? You could maybe do the Fife Circle and the Stirling triangle? Or Uckfield, Marshlink and the North Downs?

All about the opportunity cost.

Yes, although subtracted from that is the need to keep main line diesel trains for Cornwall, and all the extra operational cost. I would put wires up to Newquay and Tavistock, but I'm not sure about the others. I would hope there'd be some advances in portable propulsion usable for those at some point.

 

[The Ham]

You're probably talking about seventy five miles, plus you'd need to do roughly fifteen miles to Newquay too (or cut the popular summer weekend trains from further afield). And what about the other branches?

But if you are going to wire up around a hundred miles of track then there are surely a lot of places elsewhere in the UK with much more frequent diesel services that could be "saved" with that amount of electrification?

Is wiring roughly a hundred miles of Cornish railway better than wiring the same amount of DMU lines around Manchester/ Leeds (say the Harrogate loop, the Southport line and the Warrington Central route)? You could maybe do the Fife Circle and the Stirling triangle? Or Uckfield, Marshlink and the North Downs?

All about the opportunity cost.

Once Plymouth is wired, which I'd have though it would be a few years down the line, it'll then be at least the next CP before into Cornwall is undertaken. By which time most of the easy more frequent lines in the rest of England having been done anyway.

 

[tbtc]

That's not really a fair choice. In fact, it's closer to the same mistake BR made by not doing the Aberdeen Road when they did the ECML. Worse in fact, because they didn't end up with an hourly diesel service doing 200-odd miles under the wires. Not only does it make poor operational sense, NR come out of it looking silly. Note that I'd also do St Ives, Falmouth, Looe and Gunnislake/Tavistock and all the ones you've suggested.

It looks like a realistic choice to me - whilst some areas are easier/cheaper to electrify than others, there's only a finite budget, and wiring up one line comes at the opportunity cost of doing a roughly similar length elsewhere.

Yes, they could have wired Edinburgh - Aberdeen when they did the ECML, but then they could have done Leeds - York or the Durham Coast or the Hull line or Ely - Peterborough or plenty of other lines near the ECML - they took the cheapest option though and only did the absolute basics north of York.

If they had wired to Aberdeen then people would probably complain that they'd not done the Fife Circle too, or the Glasgow - Dundee line, or the Falkirk High line or...

 

[Zoe]

But people in Plymouth complaining about electrification "only" to Exeter is a bit like the howls of protest in Swansea about the initial plan to "only" electrify as far as Cardiff - even though Plymouth/ Swansea would be no worse off under such a plan, people can't stand the idea of the place along the line getting an improvement that "we" aren't getting.

With Swansea is that there were already a significant number of services terminating at Cardiff and these would have gone over to EMU operation with bi-mode only needed for the 1 tph to Swansea. If you electrify all the gaps in the main XC network east of Exeter and also Newbury to Cogload Junction, you are not going to get many services going over to EMU operation unless you change the service pattern to have a lot more services terminting at Exeter than currently.

 

[AndyLandy]

If the 222s could tilt, that might be a massive improvement. Expensive, of course, but tilt would take lumps out of journey times along there.

Or swap them for 221s from CrossCountry? If XC aren't making use of the tilt facility on their Super Voyagers, that would seem a sensible swap.

 

[Goatboy]

But people in Plymouth complaining about electrification "only" to Exeter is a bit like the howls of protest in Swansea about the initial plan to "only" electrify as far as Cardiff - even though Plymouth/ Swansea would be no worse off under such a plan, people can't stand the idea of the place along the line getting an improvement that "we" aren't getting.

It's not the same thing at all - my arguement all along isn't that 'waaa, Plymouth should get wires'. Infact, I think wires to Plymouth is quite correctly a low priority. There are more important places to spend the money. But in thinking this I think exactly the same about wires to Exeter. There is no point in doing Exeter and not Plymouth, so frankly neither should be high up the priority list.

Especially given the issues I've highlighted throughout this thread about the knock-on effects of a further perceived marginalisation of the West of Exeter from the transport network. It's more hassle than its worth to upgrade to Exeter.

Spend the money elsewhere and use diesels to Devon and Cornwall.

 

[HSTEd]

It looks like a realistic choice to me - whilst some areas are easier/cheaper to electrify than others, there's only a finite budget, and wiring up one line comes at the opportunity cost of doing a roughly similar length elsewhere.

Does it?

Surely continuing electrification for seventy miles beyond the previous existing project is easier than doing seventy miles somewhere else, for one thing you can likely use the same depots as established for the existing project, rather than having to use new ones.

You can also use the same engineering team without having to pay hardship for relocation, and you can carry on immediately rather than having to pack everything up and move the equipment to the new worksite.

Its a continuous rather than a discontinuous project.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Spend the money elsewhere and use diesels to Devon and Cornwall.

If you don't go to Plymouth the XC trains are stuck running under diesel power all the way from Glasgow (potentially).

Electrify from Bristol to Plymouth and leave the B&H to rust away with local trains only.

 

[tbtc]

Does it?

Surely continuing electrification for seventy miles beyond the previous existing project is easier than doing seventy miles somewhere else, for one thing you can likely use the same depots as established for the existing project, rather than having to use new ones.

You can also use the same engineering team without having to pay hardship for relocation, and you can carry on immediately rather than having to pack everything up and move the equipment to the new worksite

There are going to be plenty of electrification projects around the UK in CP5 - I could easily come up with a list of alternative extensions that require about seventy miles of electrification (if you only want seventy, I presume you would run diesels to Newquay or cut the summer tourist trains there?).

Think what an extra seventy miles could bring you in/ around Yorkshire, Lancashire, West Midlands etc - that's the opportunity cost of wiring seventy miles to Penzance for the sake of a roughly hourly service.

 

[HSTEd]

There are going to be plenty of electrification projects around the UK in CP5 - I could easily come up with a list of alternative extensions that require about seventy miles of electrification (if you only want seventy, I presume you would run diesels to Newquay or cut the summer tourist trains there?).

Alright, eighty miles of double track equivalent, sine the line to Newquay is only 20 miles of almost entirely single track.
The other branches are mostly rounding errors.

Think what an extra seventy miles could bring you in/ around Yorkshire, Lancashire, West Midlands etc - that's the opportunity cost of wiring seventy miles to Penzance for the sake of a roughly hourly service.

An 1tp2h intercity service and 1tp2h regional service likely burns more fuel than implied by its hourly nature.

If we are electrifying Plymouth to allow XC trains to run then there are not many places that would not already be covered by said project.
Perhaps the Harrogate line but that has its own set of challenges (I hear it has a long very very wet tunnel?).

I am pretty sure the limitation of electrification rate will be the rate at which our existing HOOP train can go, since once you have the engineers and HOOP train ready it is expensive even to leave it lying around.

So that gives us perhaps 300 miles per year, which is enough to saturate all the reasonable routes very quickly.

 

[The Ham]

It's not the same thing at all - my arguement all along isn't that 'waaa, Plymouth should get wires'. Infact, I think wires to Plymouth is quite correctly a low priority. There are more important places to spend the money. But in thinking this I think exactly the same about wires to Exeter. There is no point in doing Exeter and not Plymouth, so frankly neither should be high up the priority list.

Especially given the issues I've highlighted throughout this thread about the knock-on effects of a further perceived marginalisation of the West of Exeter from the transport network. It's more hassle than its worth to upgrade to Exeter.

Spend the money elsewhere and use diesels to Devon and Cornwall.

I agree, in the short to medium term, especially if bi-model trains can run to Plymouth. However there is likely to come a point when the west of England services will either need a new IC diesel or bi-model train fleet, at which point look again at if it should be electrified.

It should be noted that because Exeter has lots of routes other than just the IC route to London it could have other routes which justify electrification.

For instance if could be worth electrifying the metro services between Exmouth & Paignton (which would cover the main line from Exeter to Newton Abbot) regardless of if the main line is being electrified. Therefore once that had a good business case (possibly helped if new longer trains were needed) it would aid the business case for wiring up Plymouth and Exeter .

 

[sprinterguy]

If you don't go to Plymouth the XC trains are stuck running under diesel power all the way from Glasgow (potentially).

Electrify from Bristol to Plymouth and leave the B&H to rust away with local trains only.

It's surely going to be a while yet until electrifying the link between Birmingham and Bristol via Cheltenham is on the agenda? Even if that is done, as well as the "missing links" between Doncaster and Birmingham following MML electrification, you could just re-jig the Crosscountry service: Run Edinburgh to Bristol with electric stock, and have a diesel Manchester to Penzance service: 170 miles under the wires compared to 207 miles without them.

You'd have to knock at least 25 minutes off the journey time to make the journey time from Paddington to Exeter, Plymouth and Penzance via Bristol comparable with the time via the Berks & Hants. I'm not convinced that electrification alone (of what is already a 125mph route) can deliver that.

 

[Kali]

Let alone capacity issues...

 

[HSTEd]

You'd have to knock at least 25 minutes off the journey time to make the journey time from Paddington to Exeter, Plymouth and Penzance via Bristol comparable with the time via the Berks & Hants. I'm not convinced that electrification alone (of what is already a 125mph route) can deliver that.

We can probably expect 10 minutes or more off the stretch between London and Bristol thanks to conversion to multiple unit operation and electrification.
Its not unreasonable to think the EMUs can knock maybe another 3-4 off the Bristol-Plymouth stretch by making use of the greater acceleration available to EMUs.

And then there is the prospect, more distantly I will admit, of 140mph running between Bristol and London which could be expected to knock a few more minutes off.

At which point you are at parity with the existing travel time between London and Plymouth via the B&H.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Let alone capacity issues...

One train extra per hour between Reading and Bristol is not likely to stress the system that much, as I understand it the bottleneck is between Reading and London anyway.

 

[Zoe]

125 mph between Bristol and Bridgwater is also proposed.

 

[HSTEd]

125 mph between Bristol and Bridgwater is also proposed.

Indeed, by concentrating all the intercity services onto one route you can make the case for all manner of improvements that would never be viable otherwise.

This erases the advantage given by "cutting the corner".

It also provides an argument for using full length trains on all services as any excess seats will be available to Bristol passengers for a significant portion of the overall route.

 

[starrymarkb]

Given the curvy nature of the B&H better acceleration would have a significant effect on journey times there too...

 

[HSTEd]

Given the curvy nature of the B&H better acceleration would have a significant effect on journey times there too...

Yes, but electrification of the B&H is going to be rather more expensive than simply tacking onto the XC project to reach Taunton.
You can have electrics as far as Plymouth via the B&H or you can have electrics all the way to Penzance via Bristol.

I think the latter is the better choice.