Future of the Intercity 125s

[tbtc]

170s are pretty rubbish at acceleration - good at 100mph stuff but not the answer to Pacer replacement.

Keeping loco hauled sounds lovely, but there's really very little scope for keeping more than a couple of (additional) sets in traffic in 2012.

 

[ainsworth74]

170s are pretty rubbish at acceleration - good at 100mph stuff but not the answer to Pacer replacement.

This is true, in part because they were expected to be deployed on longer distance services (MML for example) rather than all-shacks around somewhere like West Yorkshire. Indeed their acceleration is so poor that 185s can keep to 170 timings around Selby even though the 185s are limited to a lower speed than the 170s (it can be as much as 75mph v 90mph).

 

[tbtc]

This is true, in part because they were expected to be deployed on longer distance services (MML for example) rather than all-shacks around somewhere like West Yorkshire. Indeed their acceleration is so poor that 185s can keep to 170 timings around Selby even though the 185s are limited to a lower speed than the 170s.

True - they were intended for longer distance services (London - Nottingham/ Hull/ Great Yarmouth etc) before ending up on unsuitable lines like the Chase Line.

I know I bang on about this but the problem we have is lack of basic 75mph trains - all these clever ideas about getting exciting fast trains that try to solve the Pacer problem by trying to cascade 158s/ 170s etc onto stoppers won't work.

Spare 170s may be better suited to some of the longer 156 routes (Glasgow - Carlisle, Carlisle - Newcastle, Newcastle - Middlesbrough etc) releasing 156s for stoppers elsewhere.

 

[ainsworth74]

I know I bang on about this but the problem we have is lack of basic 75mph trains

I calculated, for a different thread, a rough and ready comparison between BR and the privatised railway in terms of number of vehicles delivered in two comparable periods. In the period 2000-2010 the privatised railway delivered 1114 DMU vehicles. Of those 495 were of the 22x family, 140 were of the Coradia family and 153 were of the Desiro family. I'd suggest those vehicles are not really appropriate for replacing Sprinters or lightweight Pacers. Meaning of those 1114 about 788 aren't really useful if our aim to is to replace Pacers and the lower numbered Sprinters (the remainder are of the 17x and 168 family's plus two PPMs).

Just for the sake of completeness BR between 1980 and 1990 delivered 1069 DMU vehicles of which 338 were Pacers and 588 were 150s/155s/156s. Meaning 926 of the 1069 were what you'd call basic and suitable local stopping services.

Privatisation has been very good at delivering new trains. It has been terrible, however, at getting new fleets of basic DMUs. For example in 2006 we had 185s replacing 158s that were barely fifteen years old whilst Pacers that were approaching twenty (and were woefully in adequate for passenger loadings let alone passenger comfort) had no replacement in sight. Building something that is basic and a good fit for the replacement of 14x and 150-156 is not something we seem to be good at.

It seems the best we can hope for is getting sufficient new (or cascaded stock) to allow 150s and 156s to be released onto those local stopping services.

 

[tbtc]

I calculated, for a different thread, a rough and ready comparison between BR and the privatised railway in terms of number of vehicles delivered in two comparable periods. In the period 2000-2010 the privatised railway delivered 1114 DMU vehicles. Of those 495 were of the 22x family, 140 were of the Coradia family and 153 were of the Desiro family. I'd suggest those vehicles are not really appropriate for replacing Sprinters or lightweight Pacers. Meaning of those 1114 about 788 aren't really useful if our aim to is to replace Pacers and the lower numbered Sprinters (the remainder are of the 17x and 168 family's plus two PPMs).

Just for the sake of completeness BR between 1980 and 1990 delivered 1069 DMU vehicles of which 338 were Pacers and 588 were 150s/155s/156s. Meaning 926 of the 1069 were what you'd call basic and suitable local stopping services.

Privatisation has been very good at delivering new trains. It has been terrible, however, at getting new fleets of basic DMUs. For example in 2006 we had 185s replacing 158s that were barely fifteen years old whilst Pacers that were approaching twenty (and were woefully in adequate for passenger loadings let alone passenger comfort) had no replacement in sight. Building something that is basic and a good fit for the replacement of 14x and 150-156 is not something we seem to be good at.

It seems the best we can hope for is getting sufficient new (or cascaded stock) to allow 150s and 156s to be released onto those local stopping services.

Excellent post.

I wonder how much of this is because TOCs see 100mph+ stock as "exciting" and therefore more worthy of investment than boring stoppers?

 

[HSTEd]

Cl172 is supposed to have drastically improved acceleration compared to the Class 170.
And it has 100mph speed...

 

[LE Greys]

I calculated, for a different thread, a rough and ready comparison between BR and the privatised railway in terms of number of vehicles delivered in two comparable periods. In the period 2000-2010 the privatised railway delivered 1114 DMU vehicles. Of those 495 were of the 22x family, 140 were of the Coradia family and 153 were of the Desiro family. I'd suggest those vehicles are not really appropriate for replacing Sprinters or lightweight Pacers. Meaning of those 1114 about 788 aren't really useful if our aim to is to replace Pacers and the lower numbered Sprinters (the remainder are of the 17x and 168 family's plus two PPMs).

Just for the sake of completeness BR between 1980 and 1990 delivered 1069 DMU vehicles of which 338 were Pacers and 588 were 150s/155s/156s. Meaning 926 of the 1069 were what you'd call basic and suitable local stopping services.

Privatisation has been very good at delivering new trains. It has been terrible, however, at getting new fleets of basic DMUs. For example in 2006 we had 185s replacing 158s that were barely fifteen years old whilst Pacers that were approaching twenty (and were woefully in adequate for passenger loadings let alone passenger comfort) had no replacement in sight. Building something that is basic and a good fit for the replacement of 14x and 150-156 is not something we seem to be good at.

It seems the best we can hope for is getting sufficient new (or cascaded stock) to allow 150s and 156s to be released onto those local stopping services.

I agree entirely. We seem to be going down the Southern route for new stock provision. The SR was very good at providing new express and suburban stock, not so good for local passenger stock. That's why we have surviving Terriers, Adams Radials and Greyhounds, these Victorian relics found themselves on branch lines all over the south. What's needed is a more Great Western approach, providing standard, basic stock for branch lines (in the form of 14XXs and auto trains; 45XXs and B-sets; and eventually diesel railcars). A basic, standard, Sprinter successor is what's needed today.

Cl172 is supposed to have drastically improved acceleration compared to the Class 170.
And it has 100mph speed...

It's a likely choice. We need about 200 of them for Northern ASAP. Unfortunately, they're not flashy enough to be high priority, so it seems nobody can be bothered. And I'm afraid that's the way of politics today.

 

[transmanche]

Cl172 is supposed to have drastically improved acceleration compared to the Class 170.
And it has 100mph speed...

It's a likely choice. We need about 200 of them for Northern ASAP.

What is the acceleration of a 172 like? I've travelled on an LO example a few times and they seem quite nice units. But as the line speed on the western end of the GOBLIN is about walking pace, I've not seen their speed or acceleration tested!

Oh and make sure they are 172/2 or 172/3 types, with end gangway connections - and preferably more 172/3s to allow for growth.

 

[The Ham]

Yes, longer-distance routes currently operated with DMUs. Then cascade those DMUs to the local services. Turbostars have no problem with dwell time. 158s are not great but could be improved by enlarging the lobby area to remove the pinch-points just inside the doorways. The railway might needs some smaller diesel locos, about 1800 hp, though half an HST is a possibility too, with a control trailer at the other end. Not rocket science.

Excluding the 22x's which wouldn't be very good for local services anyway (as mentioned before) what other long distance routes are there?

The few I can think of which will still be a problem in 2020 include:

- Portsmouth to Cardiff, if the discussed electrification to Bath Via Westbury happens and Southampton to Basingstoke Via Salisbury happens early CP6 (as all the clearance work will have been done as a freight diversion) then it would be better to spend money to electrify between Salisbury & Westbury and have it as an EMU

- Waterloo to Exeter, given that for half the length of the service the train is often only 3 coaches long and that for most of the other half during the peaks it is full then Loco Hauling isn't very likely to be a cost effective way to run the service. You also run into the problem of how do control the train from the wrong end either by having a carriage with controls (expensive rebuild), have to have DVT (which takes up valuable platform length and causes problems when the train splits) or run the loco around (where no facilities exist, especially at Waterloo). Again a fairly good candidate to electrify (especially if electrification to Salisbury has already been timetabled).

- Cornish Main Line local services, These tend to be short trains and so not cost effective to Loco Haul (as is the case with many of the DMU services in the UK)

- Cardiff to Stansted, the Fenns get in the way of loco hauling this service.

 

[JamesRowden]

Excluding the 22x's which wouldn't be very good for local services anyway (as mentioned before) what other long distance routes are there?

I think that class 73/1 (3rd rail electro-diesels from the 1960's) hauled trains with a formation of:

(73/1)-(4 mark-3 carraiges)-(73/1)

Could run with the following stops:

• 
  London Victoria
  Maidstone East
  Ashford International
  Rye
  Hastings
  St Leonards Warrior Square
  Bexhill
  Eastbourne
  Polegate
  Lewes
  Brighton

This would give Maidstone East a faster service to London, Rye a direct service to London, all services on the East Coastway (Brighton-Hastings) electric traction (power to weight ratio of the formation would be better than the 171s that run between Brighton and Ashford [whilst powered by third rail] [calculated using data from wikepedia]), the formation would have a slightly better acceleration than the 171s where the line is not eletrified (Hastings - Ashford), the present 2-car 171 formations that run between Brighton and Ashford do not have enough capacity for the Hastings to Brighton section, it would create a direct service between Maidstone and the East Sussex coast and it should not be too uncompetitive when it comes to Hastings/Bexhill-London times when compared with the routes via Gatwick/Tonbridge.

A 171 operated stopping service could continue to run Hastings-Ashford to serve the other stations and provide 2tph along the line (making journeys to East Kent which all presently involve changing at Ashford more frequent and it would allow better connection times).

The problem with my plan is that I am not sure that enough 73s exist with the 90 mph top speed. The solution to this problem would be to build a new 100 mph dual voltage (AC/DC) electrodiesel locamotive that could come with a variety of specifications (diesel engine, electric motors, etc) that could be built for freight operators (should solve the problem of electric traction stock being more expensive and less flexible than diesel stock when used for freight) and passenger service that could make use of the mark 3 carriages that will come from the HSTs when they are scrapped. Passenger routes that I think could gain from such services (in addition to my first suggestion) include (as a limited stop service):

Waterloo-Basingstoke-Exeter/Plymouth
Waterloo-Basingstoke-Southampton-Weymouth (able to run a long service using the 3rd rail power with the diesel engine operating aswell to make up for the lack of power on the western end of the route)
Cardiff-Bristol-Salisbury-Portsmouth/Brighton
Reading-Redhill-Tonbridge-Ashford-Dover

(places shown are to show route, not stops)

All passenger trains would have a locamotive/DVT at each end so that the train can reverse without there needing to be any shunting.

A purely dual voltage electric version of the locamotive could also be built.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I forgot to add that a '2XCl73/1 + 4XMark3' would have about exactly the same power to mass ratio of an electrostar (when on 3rd rail).

 

[tbtc]

Cl172 is supposed to have drastically improved acceleration compared to the Class 170.
And it has 100mph speed...

True - there's just not enough of them (yet)

 

[LE Greys]

Excluding the 22x's which wouldn't be very good for local services anyway (as mentioned before) what other long distance routes are there?

The few I can think of which will still be a problem in 2020 include:

• Portsmouth to Cardiff, if the discussed electrification to Bath Via Westbury happens and Southampton to Basingstoke Via Salisbury happens early CP6 (as all the clearance work will have been done as a freight diversion) then it would be better to spend money to electrify between Salisbury & Westbury and have it as an EMU
  Thoroughly and completely agreed, only question is whether it should be dual-system or overhead only
• Waterloo to Exeter, given that for half the length of the service the train is often only 3 coaches long and that for most of the other half during the peaks it is full then Loco Hauling isn't very likely to be a cost effective way to run the service. You also run into the problem of how do control the train from the wrong end either by having a carriage with controls (expensive rebuild), have to have DVT (which takes up valuable platform length and causes problems when the train splits) or run the loco around (where no facilities exist, especially at Waterloo). Again a fairly good candidate to electrify (especially if electrification to Salisbury has already been timetabled).
  Ideally, a REP/TC solution would happen here, based on EMU technology, but unfortunately there are no convenient Class 33s to work the TCs forward. If something like this happens, it would have to be an interim solution before electrification all the way to Exeter.
• Cornish Main Line local services, These tend to be short trains and so not cost effective to Loco Haul (as is the case with many of the DMU services in the UK)
  That needs to wait for the wires to reach Penzance (which they will one day) when EMUs can finally take over, assuming they do all the branches. This is not the only local service in question.
• Cardiff to Stansted, the Fenns get in the way of loco hauling this service.
  Solutions vary, but that would need a major track upgrade, then hopefully receive cascaded Voyagers one day. Otherwise, it would have to make do with cascaded Turbostars for ever.

Answers in bold.

What this has to do with the future of the HSTs is beyond me.

 

[The Ham]

Answers in bold.

What this has to do with the future of the HSTs is beyond me.

It was in answer to a post about the future of Loco Hauling on services which would allow the release of DMU's from long distance services to local services. I was pointing out that the solutions for many of the routes are unlikely to be solved by IC125's or any other loco hauled train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem with my plan is that I am not sure that enough 73s exist with the 90 mph top speed. The solution to this problem would be to build a new 100 mph dual voltage (AC/DC) electrodiesel locamotive that could come with a variety of specifications (diesel engine, electric motors, etc) that could be built for freight operators (should solve the problem of electric traction stock being more expensive and less flexible than diesel stock when used for freight) and passenger service that could make use of the mark 3 carriages that will come from the HSTs when they are scrapped. Passenger routes that I think could gain from such services (in addition to my first suggestion) include (as a limited stop service):

Waterloo-Basingstoke-Exeter/Plymouth
Waterloo-Basingstoke-Southampton-Weymouth (able to run a long service using the 3rd rail power with the diesel engine operating aswell to make up for the lack of power on the western end of the route)
Cardiff-Bristol-Salisbury-Portsmouth/Brighton
Reading-Redhill-Tonbridge-Ashford-Dover

(places shown are to show route, not stops)

All passenger trains would have a locamotive/DVT at each end so that the train can reverse without there needing to be any shunting.

A purely dual voltage electric version of the locamotive could also be built.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I forgot to add that a '2XCl73/1 + 4XMark3' would have about exactly the same power to mass ratio of an electrostar (when on 3rd rail).

There is the problem that any new loco that runs on 3rd rail electrification would be almost solely limited to the UK. As such the development costs could be prohibitive, although that could depend on how many locos would be needed.

Also how do you overcome the issue on the Waterloo-Basingstoke-Exeter line that the formation length changes.

As stated Cardiff-Bristol-Salisbury-Portsmouth/Brighton could (depending on electrification) fairly easily become a route run by EMU in the next 10 years, leaving you with spare locos.

Reading-Redhill-Tonbridge-Ashford-Dover would require a reverse of service at Redhill, which wastes capacity, so such a service is unlikely to happen. Especially as again it would be fairly easy to electrify, as overhead electrification from Reading to Guildford would enable (subject to a few gaps further north being in-filled too) XC to run all their services through Reading as EMU's.

Likewise it is likely that the Weymouth services are likely to see their line converted from 3rd rail in the not to distant future, especially if there is enough passenger demand, again leaving you with spare locos.

All of which means you either have to plan for other lines to take the locos beyond those listed above or spend money developing something that doesn't have a very long design life. Either way it is likely to be better to invest the money electrifying the routes rather than building new locos.

 

[JamesRowden]

There is the problem that any new loco that runs on 3rd rail electrification would be almost solely limited to the UK. As such the development costs could be prohibitive, although that could depend on how many locos would be needed.

Also how do you overcome the issue on the Waterloo-Basingstoke-Exeter line that the formation length changes.

As stated Cardiff-Bristol-Salisbury-Portsmouth/Brighton could (depending on electrification) fairly easily become a route run by EMU in the next 10 years, leaving you with spare locos.

Reading-Redhill-Tonbridge-Ashford-Dover would require a reverse of service at Redhill, which wastes capacity, so such a service is unlikely to happen. Especially as again it would be fairly easy to electrify, as overhead electrification from Reading to Guildford would enable (subject to a few gaps further north being in-filled too) XC to run all their services through Reading as EMU's.

Likewise it is likely that the Weymouth services are likely to see their line converted from 3rd rail in the not to distant future, especially if there is enough passenger demand, again leaving you with spare locos.

All of which means you either have to plan for other lines to take the locos beyond those listed above or spend money developing something that doesn't have a very long design life. Either way it is likely to be better to invest the money electrifying the routes rather than building new locos.

The majority of Locos built in my idea would be for freight purposes (built in bulk and so cheap) (think of it as a IEP style project but it being Locos for freight and regional services along lines that are limited to 100 mph). They would replace the 73s that are still operating (which are nearly 50 years old). They would be able to make efficient use of a non-electrified line and an electrified one (it would also mean that freight only lines and sidings would not need to be electrified for the minimal use they may get). Also, electrification of Bristol to Souhampton and all the other examples that you have given were not in options for CP5 meaning that it is fairly certain that electrification of other lines cannot even start untill 2019. I think that given that my idea of a dual voltage electrodiesel would completely remove any reason to electrify Southampton - Bristol/Bath anytime soon for electric freight purposes (Freight diversionary route) and I think that there are a lot of unelectrfied lines that have a lot justification for eletrification in CP6 (e.g. Chiltern, XC network, Newbury-Plymouth, ECML branches [Hull, Sunderland], WCML branch to Blackpool).

Through platform '0' is being built at Redhill (there will be 4 through platforms and 1 bay pointing towards London) and it only has the relief lines of the Brighton mainline and so I do not see why one extra service having to reverse is going to swallow up the additional platform capacity. Also, a limited stop service between Reading and Ashford International via Redhill will only be slightly slower than going via London on HS1 and having to travel between the London stations on the Underground.

Mark 3 carraiges have selective door locking and so there shoudn't be any problem with longer formations (if 4 carriages is not enough to meet demand) along the Basingstoke-Exeter line because the termini (Exeter/Plymouth) have long enough platforms.

Think of these Locos as an interim measure while over the next 40-50 years we electrify the national network (freight only infastructure can be electrified last).

I would expect the demand for rail freight to increase as the UKs population and road congestion increases and oil becomes more expensive. This means that if one of the locos with a diesel engine is running on a passenger service that becomes electrified, the loco can be redeployed on freight duties or just have its diesel engine extracted.

I think that regional semi-fast/fast services that do not need intercity top speed, have at least 160m of carriages and no neccesity to split/join could be run cheaper (by only having one/two drive system(s) to build/maintain/run) by using these locos (a family that would be mass produced [would include an eletric AC only variation]) with carriages that are fit for purpose.

 

[starrymarkb]

Mark 3 carraiges have selective door locking and so there shoudn't be any problem with longer formations (if 4 carriages is not enough to meet demand) along the Basingstoke-Exeter line because the termini (Exeter/Plymouth) have long enough platforms.

You'd just be carrying air West of Salisbury... at the moment the train length is matched fairly well to demand. With quieter services running as 3 cars west of Salisbury and busier ones as 6. East of Salisbury capacity is again matched to demand with formations varying between 3 and 10 coaches (using combinations of 158s/159s)

159s already have SDO (on a per unit basis) which is used at Wimple, Feniton and Tisbury for 6 car units. Clapham Junction also requires SDO on 9 and 10 car formations.

 

[JamesRowden]

You'd just be carrying air West of Salisbury... at the moment the train length is matched fairly well to demand. With quieter services running as 3 cars west of Salisbury and busier ones as 6. East of Salisbury capacity is again matched to demand with formations varying between 3 and 10 coaches (using combinations of 158s/159s)

159s already have SDO (on a per unit basis) which is used at Wimple, Feniton and Tisbury for 6 car units. Clapham Junction also requires SDO on 9 and 10 car formations.

I think that an intercity service between Exeter/Plymouth and Waterloo may attract some of the passengers who presently catch the Paddington trains.

 

[starrymarkb]

Are you sure about that? There isn't room to run fast and slow services without adding more loops or doubling more of it, given the extra hour to Waterloo I can't see it taking much away from the Paddington route

 

[ainsworth74]

I think that an intercity service between Exeter/Plymouth and Waterloo may attract some of the passengers who presently catch the Paddington trains.

I doubt that many passengers would change to services leaving Waterloo seeing as it takes an hour longer than than going from Paddington.

 

[JamesRowden]

Are you sure about that? There isn't room to run fast and slow services without adding more loops or doubling more of it, given the extra hour to Waterloo I can't see it taking much away from the Paddington route

I did not know that someone had been stupid enough to single track that route. An idea to get around this problem would be that a Salisbury-Exeter stopping service could leave Salisbury just behind the fast service and vice versa in the other direction (creates good conections and means that the two services do not get in the way of each other (when travelling in the same direction). I might guess that double tracking some more of the stations with the stopping services waiting in the platform would probably be required.

The time saved by not stopping at nine to ten stations that the present faster service stops at should save a fair amount of time, Waterloo may be better placed for some passengers (e.g. they want to travel to South London or somewhere south or south east of London). Also, the service could be timed from Exeter so that it leaves at a time that it gets to Waterloo before the next Paddington train gets to Paddington).

 

[AndyLandy]

I did not know that someone had been stupid enough to single track that route. An idea to get around this problem would be that a Salisbury-Exeter stopping service could leave Salisbury just behind the fast service and vice versa in the other direction (creates good conections and means that the two services do not get in the way of each other (when travelling in the same direction). I might guess that double tracking some more of the stations with the stopping services waiting in the platform would probably be required.

The time saved by not stopping at nine to ten stations that the present faster service stops at should save a fair amount of time, Waterloo may be better placed for some passengers (e.g. they want to travel to South London or somewhere south or south east of London). Also, the service could be timed from Exeter so that it leaves at a time that it gets to Waterloo before the next Paddington train gets to Paddington).

That would be Dr. Beeching, unless I'm mistaken.

I do wonder how much effort would be required to redouble it though. Certainly as I recall from the last time I travelled that way, all the structures (bridges etc) predated the singling of the line, so could be left unaltered. I suspect the biggest problems will be stations like Tisbury where there's only one line and one platform.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

170s are pretty rubbish at acceleration - good at 100mph stuff but not the answer to Pacer replacement.

Fit lower ratio gears?

 

[Charlie2555]

That would be Dr. Beeching, unless I'm mistaken.

I do wonder how much effort would be required to redouble it though. Certainly as I recall from the last time I travelled that way, all the structures (bridges etc) predated the singling of the line, so could be left unaltered. I suspect the biggest problems will be stations like Tisbury where there's only one line and one platform.

Dr Beeching- what an idiot!
Tisbury does have a 1986 added passing loop which cost £435,000 outside the station. I'd personally love the idea of redoubling my local line: the trackbed is wide enough (I think) and would be a nice improvement to the current 1tph.

 

[LE Greys]

That would be Dr. Beeching, unless I'm mistaken.

I do wonder how much effort would be required to redouble it though. Certainly as I recall from the last time I travelled that way, all the structures (bridges etc) predated the singling of the line, so could be left unaltered. I suspect the biggest problems will be stations like Tisbury where there's only one line and one platform.

Not quite, Beeching wasn't in charge of the Western Region at the time, although I think he did identify the line as a duplicate route under Beeching 2 (possibly after some nudging by Western Regions management).

In terms of structures foul of a reinstated line, how many are there and can they be moved? Also, what utter clot thought of the idea of putting them there? Even then, they must have realised the second line might go back some day.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

I think that an intercity service between Exeter/Plymouth and Waterloo may attract some of the passengers who presently catch the Paddington trains.

Probably already does attract people from south and west of London to avoid crossing London on the tube to Paddington.

Also the trains tend to be less overcrowded.

 

[LE Greys]

Probably already does attract people from south and west of London to avoid crossing London on the tube to Paddington.

Also the trains tend to be less overcrowded.

Remember, it also calls at Basingstoke and Woking, IIRC, thus giving these areas a link westwards (and to London). However, if they are 'less-overcrowded', considering they still use 159s, then that suggests either that nobody uses them or suppressed demand. I suspect the latter. Speed them up to nearer GW times, and the passengers will come. However, that will take major input.

IMO, the ultimate aim should be a double-track 100mph electrified route with 2tph (one fast, one slow) loaded to whatever length is required. To bring this about, the place to start is double track, giving operational flexibility. This would allow an even-interval, hourly DMU service. At the same time, build in provision for SP90 limits (if not there already) with passive provision for EMU100 at some time in the future. Electrify next, bringing the EMU100 speed limits, probably with 75 for everything else, absorbing the china clay traffic. This would push through two renewal cycles, so might take some time, but it ought to work eventually.

 

[IanXC]

I have to say I have still to see a better solution (short of electrification from Basingstoke to Exeter) for the Waterloo-Exeter service than IEP. I would have thought a 3rd rail variant would be relatively cheap to develop, and whilst IEP would be rather over specified for the route currently, it seems clear that during the stock's lifetime conversion to OHLE and the possible speed increases that go with that, will occur.

 

[transmanche]

I have to say I have still to see a better solution (short of electrification from Basingstoke to Exeter) for the Waterloo-Exeter service than IEP. I would have thought a 3rd rail variant would be relatively cheap to develop, and whilst IEP would be rather over specified for the route currently, it seems clear that during the stock's lifetime conversion to OHLE and the possible speed increases that go with that, will occur.

There are other, perhaps more suitable, bi-mode trains available.

 

[starrymarkb]

. At the same time, build in provision for SP90 limits

Much of the route west of Salisbury is 85mph all stock...

There are other, perhaps more suitable, bi-mode trains available.

Something based around the drivetrain of the French AGC?

 

[transmanche]

Something based around the drivetrain of the French AGC?

Exactly.

 

[LE Greys]

Much of the route west of Salisbury is 85mph all stock...

Interesting, sounds like 85/100 might be affordable if they ever get around to redualling. SWT could then take on the 185s, cascading the 159s to FGW and releasing quite a few 158s and 150s.