IEP and the Cotswold line

[jimm]

Grrr, I am Jimm, I am internet hardman, hear me roar.

The point about SDO was acknowledged right at the beginning and the discussion moved on. You are too busy trying to be an internet hardman telling everyone their wrong and not spending enough time absorbing the debate and accepting that other people have views different to yours.

You're busy acting like the worst kind of knuckledragging RPI. You don't have a monopoly on knowledge - and guess what it's a discussion forum and people discuss things. You haven't quite grasped that yet. Manners cost nothing and there is absolutely no need for you to take the tone and manner you have in this thread. It does nothing to dispel the negative impression that most people have of the social skills of railway enthusiasts.

I've seen nothing about longer platforms at Hanborough, considering that they haven't even got very far with the car park yet I won't hold my breath.

Shipton has a limited service precisely because of the short platforms there.

While running in multiple is a possibility the next question is whether it is practical/feasible/desirable. That is where we are at.

If you have short platforms and no bike storage then that obviously poses a problem at somewhere like Hanborough - I can't really imagine people wheeling their bikes through the train (and bike space is already limited there).

I'm a hardman and a knuckle-dragger am I? Well at least I haven't descended into personal insults just because someone doesn't agree with me.

I'll adopt whatever tone I like when people persist in posting stuff along the lines of 'they just should have eight-car trains all the time' but then decline to explain how they justify this in the face of the obvious point that outside peak periods beyond Oxford and Swindon, long trains will be long half-empty trains.

Multiple-working is clearly practical and feasible. If you don't think it is desirable, please explain why carting air around in strings of empty coaches is desirable?

If you understood the point about SDO and the discussion had moved on, why did you post this yesterday

you don't have the infrastructure (longer platforms) to accommodate trains running in multiple.

when the point about why longer platforms are not needed had been answered by what was said about the SDO right at the start?

Re Hanborough - the parking spaces have been ready for a week, but they can't be opened until the county council highways department carries out alterations to the entrance and marks a right-turn lane for traffic coming from Witney. This work started on Monday and is expected to take a fortnight or so - there are signs on the road outside if you don't believe me - with the parking opening as soon as it is completed.

Extra work going on there in the next few weeks will include the ramp down to the platform level from the car park extension and an extra cycle shelter and I can assure you FGW is working up a proposal for a platform extension there to five-car length, same as the new platforms built at Charlbury and Honeybourne two years ago - and where initial proposals for 10-car platforms were not implemented.

Shipton has a limited service because of a short platform. The Worcester-bound one takes a three-car Turbo. The dismal service into Oxford is because the other one only takes two cars and until the 180s appeared with SDO (and HSTs were fitted), only a two-car 165 could call, so while places with three-car platforms like Hanborough and Honeybourne steadily saw more trains over the 1990s, Shipton got left out. Apart from the morning stopping train into Oxford, almost everything that now calls at Shipton both ways is an SDO-fitted 180 or HST. A post-GW electrification recast of the timetable may well see more trains calling but not many are likely to be a 2x5 with all cars in service and even so, the numbers boarding are unlikely to overwhelm a train, so you might very well just put one set on the platform.

 

[Mintona]

So then - to sum up - the people of Gloucester, Cheltenham, Worcester and Hereford will have a service consisting of shorter trains and longer journey times (whilst attachments/detachments and switchover from electric to diesel take place). And in the event of a cancellation less chance of boarding the next train as there won't be as many coaches to fit them all on.

Seems logical.

 

[tbtc]

So then - to sum up - the people of Gloucester, Cheltenham, Worcester and Hereford will have a service consisting of shorter trains and longer journey times (whilst attachments/detachments and switchover from electric to diesel take place). And in the event of a cancellation less chance of boarding the next train as there won't be as many coaches to fit them all on.

Seems logical.

Are you saying that Hereford needs every service to be eight coaches wrong?

Are you saying that the switchover is going to take long (given the length of dwell at Oxford to cope with passenger numbers, and how quickly the AC/ DC switches are done on Thameslink/ London Overground)?

Does it take TOCs like Southern ages to attach/ detach units on their intense pattern of services?

Just fancied a pop at IEP?

 

[HSTEd]

There is no reason that one buffet would not sufficient.

I don't think there is any doubt that even a 10 car set will have fewer crew than a pair of coupled five car sets.

10-car set has a crew of four - driver, guard, buffet staff member and someone to help in first class.
2 5 car sets have a larger crew - driver, guard, two buffet staff members and two people to help in first class (even ignoring the possible need for an assistant guard to check tickets) which is rather more.

 

[Mintona]

Are you saying that Hereford needs every service to be eight coaches wrong?

Are you saying that the switchover is going to take long (given the length of dwell at Oxford to cope with passenger numbers, and how quickly the AC/ DC switches are done on Thameslink/ London Overground)?

Does it take TOCs like Southern ages to attach/ detach units on their intense pattern of services?

Just fancied a pop at IEP?

None of what I said was incorrect though. Journey times will be extended, and these cities will have shorter trains serving them. I'd imagine an AC/diesel changeover would take quite a bit longer than an AC/DC one.

 

[tbtc]

None of what I said was incorrect though. Journey times will be extended, and these cities will have shorter trains serving them. I'd imagine an AC/diesel changeover would take quite a bit longer than an AC/DC one.

We're guessing about the dwell times at Oxford.

But you're saying longer journey times overall - considering that the EMU section should see faster acceleration they may be faster overall.

Does Hereford need all eight coaches? If not, why are we arguing about reducing capacity on that end of the route (when increasing it at the busy London end)?

If the alternative is eight coaches throughout then that means fewer seats between London - Reading - Oxford so that there are more between Worcester and Hereford.

 

[HSTEd]

There are operational benefits to running simple formations, which combined with the reduced staffing costs, can in some cases offset the extra rolling stock costs.

 

[jimm]

None of what I said was incorrect though. Journey times will be extended, and these cities will have shorter trains serving them. I'd imagine an AC/diesel changeover would take quite a bit longer than an AC/DC one.

Not incorrect?

Journey times will be extended how when the timetable will be speeded up generally? And when speed limits west of Oxford are under scrutiny to see where they can be lifted - the 75mph section between Moreton-in-Marsh and Evesham in particular. An IEP will accelerate better than an HST, no messing around with slam doors, etc...

And I might add the following from the technical specification - Page 16:

A Bi-mode IEP Unit must be able to switch between any of the modes identified in TS1576 whilst at any speed from stationary up to the maximum speed of an IEP Train identified in TS261.

So I hope it doesn't take too long, as it could get messy making the change on the move.

These cities will have shorter trains serving them? Well outside the peaks, when they will have longer trains with more seats serving them than HSTs, the Worcester route will have five-car IEPs instead of five-car 180s or two and three-car Turbos. So not shorter trains. If you really think that Cheltenham off-peaks, or the off-peak pair to Hereford, merit an HST at the western ends of those routes, travel on one and you'll see why they aren't needed.

The 180s were a firm fixture on the Cheltenham jobs until the rundown of the fleet began in 2008 - because they matched the loadings. If more 180s were available now, I would have expected to see them go there again.

And while people work themselves up over where and how many guards there will be, don't forget that the IEP will be set up for driver-only operation and you can bet your life that is how services turning round at Oxford will be worked, same as the turbos now, though I'd expect a guard on workings to and from the Cotswold Line, as also applies now.

 

[HSTEd]

There is a reason no major DOO conversions have occurred since privatisation.

And if they go DOO, they have 9-car crewing of 3..... whereas a pair of five car units coupled together have a crew of five.

2 extra staff members really adds up, and combined with operational simplicities it could probably add up to a similar order-of-magnitude to the cost of the extra carriages.

 

[cjp]

Originally Posted by Monkey Magic View Post
:roll:Ho hum. Yes I read it but the debate has moved on since then and you haven't kept up. So spare me the lecture about how I should read the thread.

No, you haven't read the thread and haven't kept up. That point about the SDO system was there near the start. The rest of us have been posting since then on the basis that this is the way 2x5 operations will work. And no-one has said anything to the contrary since page 1.

In the unlikely event a 2x5 serves Shipton, then there is room to spare at either end of a 56m two-car Turbo calling on the short platform there, so yes, I think it is highly likely you could get a car each from two sets on, given the IEP door positions set in from the coach ends. FGW are working towards getting a five-car platform at Hanborough anyway and no, bike storage will not be in the end coaches - see these diagrams https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3469/iep-train-layouts.pdf

Thank you for defending me, it was appreciated.
As for monkey magic's posts I have now found out about the ignore list so they will trouble me no more. However whilst there have been some interesting and informed posts to this thread but I decided to unsubscribe to this thread as things are getting unnecessarily personal.
Cheers

 

[jimm]

There is a reason no major DOO conversions have occurred since privatisation.

And if they go DOO, they have 9-car crewing of 3..... whereas a pair of five car units coupled together have a crew of five.

2 extra staff members really adds up, and combined with operational simplicities it could probably add up to a similar order-of-magnitude to the cost of the extra carriages.

And this reason would be? The unions? Well let's wait and see, shall we?

Who are all these people on top of the driver? Catering crew? I keep pointing out that there is no catering on Oxford Turbo-worked expresses that terminate there (beyond the odd trolley). That's not going to change with any new rolling stock. And I don't think anyone envisages DOO working on long-distance services anyway.

 

[HSTEd]

And this reason would be? The unions? Well let's wait and see, shall we?

Indeed, now that drivers can "defect" to other TOCs, none have the stomach to actually fight the unions on DOO.
Its also one of the reasons that wages seem to be so much higher in real terms than they used to be.

Who are all these people on top of the driver? Catering crew? I keep pointing out that there is no catering on Oxford Turbo-worked expresses that terminate there (beyond the odd trolley). That's not going to change with any new rolling stock. And I don't think anyone envisages DOO working on long-distance services anyway.

You have to provide at-least one member of staff in both units, so eliminating the catering provision from one unit reduces your double unit crew to 4 (as the leading unit has to be the one going beyond Oxford so has to have the catering crew in it).

However if we are splitting units regularly at Oxford you won't be able to remove the crew from the other unit since it will continue to need the catering service, unless you plan to eliminate it on the full length of the Cotswold line.

And don't they have HSTs to Oxford? If you eliminate catering on those trains then your DOO crew size is half the 2x5 formation with a 9 car formation.

 

[Rhydgaled]

You are not suddenly going to go from running well-loaded 280-seat trains off-peak to running well-loaded 600-seat trains.

What do you define as off-peak? During the day, between the am and pm peaks, trains seem to tend to be quite well loaded (although I'm not talking Intercity trains here, since I don't use them very often), but I do admit you aren't suddenly going to fill a 600 seat train. You could very easily overflow a 300 seat one if current loadings are approaching that.

It's early morning and late evening trains that are always likely to be quiet, and if that applies on the Cotswolds maybe in that case they maybe should just use a short DMU with connections at Reading or Oxford, though getting one there could be an issue.

it is seems fair to assume that the way 2x5 formations will work is stop with the middle of the formation on short platforms, like those on the Cotswold Line and down the Stroud Valley, so that doors on parts of both sets can be opened. The formation will not draw up neatly with the nose or back next to the ends of the platform, they will stick out at both ends.

Well, if the signal positions allow that... You'd get more coaches of an IC125 on the platform at Whitland if the leading class 43 could park beyond the end of the platform, and wouldn't need to worry about locos wasting platform space expect at one end of the line.

Forget 22xs of any sort. They cannot carry enough passengers - a seven-car has fewer standard class seats than a five-car 180. Even if you converted some of the first class seats, you would just about break even with a 180 - in a train that is 56m longer and is not going to be turned into a bi-mode.

Since they aren't going to be turned into bi-mode, then I suppose I'll agree with that. Turning them into bi-mode (giving them new pantograph vehicles with larger seating capacity) would be the only way it might work.

What you have suggested in the past was seven-car 22xs, not IEPs, which you keep telling us should not be built in the first place, seven-car 22xs which, as I pointed out, as currently configured on MML have fewer standard class seats than a 180. In what way is cutting capacity "more reasonable"? Stupid is what I'd call it.

The 7-car 22xs would need to be bi-mode and have a major refurbishment to try and sort out the capacity issue. If it still wouldn't increase the capacity much above a 180, yes it would be a stupid idea but I can't see why you couldn't make a 7-car bi-mode 222 have around 2 coaches more seats than a 180. Anyway, since the bi-mode 22x is dead (sadly) I think I relented slightly and said that 7-car (or longer) IEP bi-modes should be built in small numbers for the Cotswolds line (and maybe the proposed Westbury semi-fasts) only. Every other IEP should not have a single diesel engine anywhere. And none of them should be bought using these incredibly expensive PFI contracts.

Finally, further in the future when no new IEP's could be ordered there are likely to be more routes electrified allowing more electric trains to take over some of the services which will be run by bi-modal trains allowing the replaced bi-modals to strengthen other routes which still need bi-modal trains

One of the reasons I'm so heavily against bi-mode IEP for routes such as Cheltenham and Weston-Super-Mare to Paddington, which I think have a strong case for electrification, is that IEPs aren't readily cascadable to other routes due to their longer carriages.

Also this

appears to show the pantograph on the front car which would surely make running in multiple difficult with the standing wave problem identified elsewhere.

I assume they'll be a pantograph on both driving cars. If so, shouldn't it only be a problem if both the outer driving cars have failed pantographs? Also, why is that IEP in GNER livery?

I can only see 5-car IEPs to Worcester and Great Malvern as a disaster waiting to happen, however 10 cars would be overkill

Exactly, a problem. 5-car is too short, 9-car probably too long further west but 7-car is too short east of Oxford/Reading. As I see it, the only options are:

• Run the longer trains, putting up with them being lightly-loaded at the extremities or
• Terminate off-peak London services closer to London with connecting trains.

The latter might lose a sizeable amount of patronage, so I'd probably punt for the former.

expecting passengers to walk along a 260m long train to get to the one buffet on board?

Buffet, on an IEP? Judging by the seating plan, you won't many coaches to walk if you're in first class and if you're in standard you don't have access to a buffet at all, only a trolley since the buffet is in the front of the first class driving car. IC125s and IC225s both have one buffet car, suituated between first and standard. That's the way it should be in my opinion, and shorter trains are less likely to have buffet facilities at all, since the market size is smaller and less likely to justify it.

outside peak periods beyond Oxford and Swindon, long trains will be long half-empty trains.

Multiple-working is clearly practical and feasible. If you don't think it is desirable, please explain why carting air around in strings of empty coaches is desirable?

Multiple-working is clearly practical and feasible with 158s and other such trains that have corridor connections on the ends. With trains without corridor connections on the ends, making multiple-working desirable is not very practicle. In my opinion, for multiple working of such stock as 180s/IEPs/22xs to be desirable they must, at the very least:

• Remain coupled for the duration of service (no portion working)
• Ensure at least one passenger door on each set can be used at every station call
• Ensure revenue protection (unless the TOC is happy for passengers not to have their tickets checked) and catering availablity in all units for the duration of service

The first item destroys the usefulness of multiple-working in this scenario.

How far do you go with avoiding 'half-empty' trains anyway? Most regional services are quieter at the extremeties, should we just have a massive fleet of 153s and single-car versions of 158s and split them left, right and centre? The 14:30 Manchester to Milford Haven for example has been lengthened to 3-car, but a 2-car set would probably surfice west of Carmarthen.

 

[jimm]

Indeed, now that drivers can "defect" to other TOCs, none have the stomach to actually fight the unions on DOO.
Its also one of the reasons that wages seem to be so much higher in real terms than they used to be.



You have to provide at-least one member of staff in both units, so eliminating the catering provision from one unit reduces your double unit crew to 4 (as the leading unit has to be the one going beyond Oxford so has to have the catering crew in it).

However if we are splitting units regularly at Oxford you won't be able to remove the crew from the other unit since it will continue to need the catering service, unless you plan to eliminate it on the full length of the Cotswold line.

And don't they have HSTs to Oxford? If you eliminate catering on those trains then your DOO crew size is half the 2x5 formation with a 9 car formation.

Like I said, we'll see on DOO - it's a way off yet. And all the rest of what you say still does not answer how you intend to fill all the empty seats beyond Oxford and Swindon your long trains would have. That HSTs work some of these trains now outside the peaks is down to operational issues - like not having enough 180s, or not making people endure riding in Turbos all the way to Hereford - not because there are hordes of people travelling, or likely to be in the future.

What do you define as off-peak? During the day, between the am and pm peaks, trains seem to tend to be quite well loaded (although I'm not talking Intercity trains here, since I don't use them very often), but I do admit you aren't suddenly going to fill a 600 seat train. You could very easily overflow a 300 seat one if current loadings are approaching that.

It's early morning and late evening trains that are always likely to be quiet, and if that applies on the Cotswolds maybe in that case they maybe should just use a short DMU with connections at Reading or Oxford, though getting one there could be an issue.

Well, if the signal positions allow that... You'd get more coaches of an IC125 on the platform at Whitland if the leading class 43 could park beyond the end of the platform, and wouldn't need to worry about locos wasting platform space expect at one end of the line.

Since they aren't going to be turned into bi-mode, then I suppose I'll agree with that. Turning them into bi-mode (giving them new pantograph vehicles with larger seating capacity) would be the only way it might work.

The 7-car 22xs would need to be bi-mode and have a major refurbishment to try and sort out the capacity issue. If it still wouldn't increase the capacity much above a 180, yes it would be a stupid idea but I can't see why you couldn't make a 7-car bi-mode 222 have around 2 coaches more seats than a 180. Anyway, since the bi-mode 22x is dead (sadly) I think I relented slightly and said that 7-car (or longer) IEP bi-modes should be built in small numbers for the Cotswolds line (and maybe the proposed Westbury semi-fasts) only. Every other IEP should not have a single diesel engine anywhere. And none of them should be bought using these incredibly expensive PFI contracts.

One of the reasons I'm so heavily against bi-mode IEP for routes such as Cheltenham and Weston-Super-Mare to Paddington, which I think have a strong case for electrification, is that IEPs aren't readily cascadable to other routes due to their longer carriages.

I assume they'll be a pantograph on both driving cars. If so, shouldn't it only be a problem if both the outer driving cars have failed pantographs? Also, why is that IEP in GNER livery?

Exactly, a problem. 5-car is too short, 9-car probably too long further west but 7-car is too short east of Oxford/Reading. As I see it, the only options are:

• Run the longer trains, putting up with them being lightly-loaded at the extremities or
• Terminate off-peak London services closer to London with connecting trains.

The latter might lose a sizeable amount of patronage, so I'd probably punt for the former.

Buffet, on an IEP? Judging by the seating plan, you won't many coaches to walk if you're in first class and if you're in standard you don't have access to a buffet at all, only a trolley since the buffet is in the front of the first class driving car. IC125s and IC225s both have one buffet car, suituated between first and standard. That's the way it should be in my opinion, and shorter trains are less likely to have buffet facilities at all, since the market size is smaller and less likely to justify it.

Multiple-working is clearly practical and feasible with 158s and other such trains that have corridor connections on the ends. With trains without corridor connections on the ends, making multiple-working desirable is not very practicle. In my opinion, for multiple working of such stock as 180s/IEPs/22xs to be desirable they must, at the very least:

• Remain coupled for the duration of service (no portion working)
• Ensure at least one passenger door on each set can be used at every station call
• Ensure revenue protection (unless the TOC is happy for passengers not to have their tickets checked) and catering availablity in all units for the duration of service

The first item destroys the usefulness of multiple-working in this scenario.

How far do you go with avoiding 'half-empty' trains anyway? Most regional services are quieter at the extremeties, should we just have a massive fleet of 153s and single-car versions of 158s and split them left, right and centre? The 14:30 Manchester to Milford Haven for example has been lengthened to 3-car, but a 2-car set would probably surfice west of Carmarthen.

Do I have to repeat myself? There are peak and off-peak periods on all seven days of the week. The current Cotswold Line timetable reflects that very well, with its allocation of different types of trains across the week - allocations that have not been made by accident.

I keep saying FGW are looking at something above a five-car train - six might be a possibility, adding almost 90 extra seats, so about 400, but, as you note, a seven-car IEP doesn't make sense - it would offer way more seats than a 180 now, so you are into lots of empty seats off-peak territory beyond Oxford and Swindon, but it would fall short of the current HST capacities, so would struggle in the peaks, based on current loads, never mind if you want to allow for growth on the busiest parts of the GWML.

That is still not an argument for the entire fleet being eight-car or nine-car, which is too inflexible, same as it was trying to use HSTs on lots of Cotswold Line trains after 180s went, then reverting to 166s which had been removed from the route five years earlier because they were no longer able to cope with demand. Forget changing trains, though you certainly wouldn't have a capacity problem if you tried to bring that back.

Go to Charlbury or Hanborough when the first couple of London trains arrive and then tell me early-morning trains are quiet. The late-evening westbound trains position HSTs to come back the other way the next morning, so no, you are not going to start running dmus.

You can move signals, if necessary.

Cheltenham and Weston simply do not stack up for electrification until XC services are wired and you can bring other services into the picture as well. There has to be a critical mass of traffic to make it pay. Just look at the initial study of the proposal to extend electrification past Westbury http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=12464.0

The IEP seating plans clearly say they are drafts. The final layout internally and catering arrangements are yet to be decided - so again likely to be something FGW will have to sort out before production starts.

Please don't start all that stuff about corridor connections again. Those poor French and Germans, condemned to ride around in coupled TGVs and ICEs, some of which even divide to serve different destinations and which can run as single units outside peak periods. Truly shocking stuff. Just as shocking as all the trains in this country that TOCs dare to couple up without corridor connections.

What is this obsession about revenue protection? An Oxford fast leaving a barriered platform at Paddington calls at Slough (sometimes), Reading, Didcot (sometimes) and Oxford. All of which have barriers. People may connect from unbarriered stations but the bulk of people on board will have gone through a barrier before setting foot on board and will have to do so to get out of the station at their destination. You might even encounter some RPIs as well - hopefully not too knuckledragging. Catering on Oxford to London-only runs does not pay, which is why FGW don't offer it.

Are you seriously trying to equate hauling 300 empty seats and rest of the weight of those empty coaches around on a series of trains for most of the day with a lightly-loaded off-peak dmu?

 

[RobShipway]

One point that everyone seems to miss is that the IEP with only have 5 coaches, actually equates to the same amount of seats if you look at the details, that are in a 8-car HST set due to the fact of the IEP coaches being longer than the MK3's as has been mentioned in other threads on IEP.

So when you are saying about two IEP trains running in multiple, you are asking for the equivalent of two HST sets to be running together as a 16 coach train!!!

 

[HSTEd]

Like I said, we'll see on DOO - it's a way off yet. And all the rest of what you say still does not answer how you intend to fill all the empty seats beyond Oxford and Swindon your long trains would have. That HSTs work some of these trains now outside the peaks is down to operational issues - like not having enough 180s, or not making people endure riding in Turbos all the way to Hereford - not because there are hordes of people travelling, or likely to be in the future.

I don't need to fill them all.
The reduced staffing costs and simplified operations will permit the trains to be run at comparable cost to now, requiring only marginal increases in rider-ship to break even.
What is all these splits at Oxford going to do to the station out of interest? You are going to need conflicting shunt moves galore across the station to transfer the set into position for the return service, that will require an extra crew be maintained at oxford, adding yet more staff costs.

Fuel costs are not really that high in terms of the general cost of running the railway, and cab vehicles will tend to be more expensive than intermediate vehicles.
Class 180s are obviously far cheaper to run than HSTs for a variety of reasons including fuel and track access, Turbos even more so.

The cost differential between running a 9-car IEP and a pair of 5-car IEPs that split en route is far less clear.

 

[Mintona]

Whilst you say that the French split and join TGVs en-route - which is true - I'm not aware of there being any 5 coach TGVs?

On a slightly off-topic note, I have no idea why Swindon - Gloucester - Newport isn't being electrified for Severn Tunnel diversions. The people of Cardiff will be putting up with 5 coach trains as well when it's shut!

 

[starrymarkb]

Whilst you say that the French split and join TGVs en-route - which is true - I'm not aware of there being any 5 coach TGVs?

On a slightly off-topic note, I have no idea why Swindon - Gloucester - Newport isn't being electrified for Severn Tunnel diversions. The people of Cardiff will be putting up with 5 coach trains as well when it's shut!

There are however 4, 5, 7 and 8* coach ICEs that spilt and combine on route...

Presumably they will run a pair of IEPs on the Cardiff diversions

 

[JamesRowden]

I don't need to fill them all.
The reduced staffing costs and simplified operations will permit the trains to be run at comparable cost to now, requiring only marginal increases in rider-ship to break even.
What is all these splits at Oxford going to do to the station out of interest? You are going to need conflicting shunt moves galore across the station to transfer the set into position for the return service, that will require an extra crew be maintained at oxford, adding yet more staff costs.

Fuel costs are not really that high in terms of the general cost of running the railway, and cab vehicles will tend to be more expensive than intermediate vehicles.
Class 180s are obviously far cheaper to run than HSTs for a variety of reasons including fuel and track access, Turbos even more so.

The cost differential between running a 9-car IEP and a pair of 5-car IEPs that split en route is far less clear.

How about making the rear 5-cars of the Paddington to Hereford services detach at Oxford and continue to Milton Keynes or Bedford as an East West Rail service so to reduce congestion at Oxford station?

This would also save the cost of an EMU set that would otherwise run the East West Rail service seperately and it would help make the loadings between Reading and Oxford more similar to those between Paddington and Reading.

 

[tbtc]

I have no idea why Swindon - Gloucester - Newport isn't being electrified for Severn Tunnel diversions

Probably because there's a limit to what can be electrified in CP5 and the main GWML bits (London to Bristol/ Cardiff/ Swansea) and the Valley Lines take priority over diversionary routes that may not seen any electrified trains for long periods.

Swindon - Gloucester - Newport would make sense if you also do Bromsgrove - Cheltenham - Bristol Parkway, but that's something for the future.

The bi-mode aspect of IEP means that we don't need to wire up every potential diversionary route anyway.

 

[The Ham]

How about making the rear 5-cars of the Paddington to Hereford services detach at Oxford and continue to Milton Keynes or Bedford as an East West Rail service so to reduce congestion at Oxford station?

This would also save the cost of an EMU set that would otherwise run the East West Rail service seperately and it would help make the loadings between Reading and Oxford more similar to those between Paddington and Reading.

Either way (running on East West or running longer length trains) it will require more IEP carriages than are currently on order (not that I think that's a problem).

The problem with running on East West is that the passenger loadings are envisaged to be a very low for a 5 coach train, although if that were the case fares could be lower than normal to encourage a higher usage to better fill the trains.

 

[Rich McLean]

Either way (running on East West or running longer length trains) it will require more IEP carriages than are currently on order (not that I think that's a problem).

The problem with running on East West is that the passenger loadings are envisaged to be a very low for a 5 coach train, although if that were the case fares could be lower than normal to encourage a higher usage to better fill the trains.

It was thought that the Semi-Fasts Paddington - Oxford trains now, using EMUs, would be the ones to continue.

However, before 180s came along, splitting and joining turbo's and turning them at Oxford has never been a problem.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Probably because there's a limit to what can be electrified in CP5 and the main GWML bits (London to Bristol/ Cardiff/ Swansea) and the Valley Lines take priority over diversionary routes that may not seen any electrified trains for long periods.

Swindon - Gloucester - Newport would make sense if you also do Bromsgrove - Cheltenham - Bristol Parkway, but that's something for the future.

Personally, I think Swindon - Cheltenham/Gloucester - Newport makes sense anyway, since there'll be an hourly Intercity train Swindon - Cheltenham and hopefully an hourly service from Cheltenham to Cardiff/Swansea, plus the diversionary aspect. I agree on time frames meaning it can't be done in CP5, but most of the routes DaFT want bi-mode IEP for (Hull, Weston-Super-Mare, Cheltenham and Harrogate) should be wired in early CP6 in my opinion, provided the currently annouced work doesn't overflow into CP6.

 

[anthony263]

Hopefully in CP6 & CP7 we will see the crosscountry core routes wired including Gloucester - Severn Tunnel Junction and Swindon. An hourly Swansea - Gloucester service would be good one the full route is electrified.

 

[Stats]

What is all these splits at Oxford going to do to the station out of interest? You are going to need conflicting shunt moves galore across the station to transfer the set into position for the return service, that will require an extra crew be maintained at oxford, adding yet more staff costs.

Oxford isn't a specified turnaround location so they are not going to return to London unless the contract changes.

 

[tbtc]

Hopefully in CP6 & CP7 we will see the crosscountry core routes wired including Gloucester - Severn Tunnel Junction and Swindon

Hopefully we will.

But we can't wait until 2024 to withdraw large numbers of HSTs, or wire much more than already committed to in CP5, which means accepting some bi-mode in the medium term.

 

[jimm]

One point that everyone seems to miss is that the IEP with only have 5 coaches, actually equates to the same amount of seats if you look at the details, that are in a 8-car HST set due to the fact of the IEP coaches being longer than the MK3's as has been mentioned in other threads on IEP.

So when you are saying about two IEP trains running in multiple, you are asking for the equivalent of two HST sets to be running together as a 16 coach train!!!

I think you've got your numbers wrong there. A single five-car IEP unit with 'normal' density seating on the draft plans has 315 seats, a high-capacity would presumably squeeze a couple of dozen more in. FGW HSTs have about 500 or 580 seats, depending on the type of buffet and whether they are 'low' or 'high' capacity.

I don't need to fill them all.
The reduced staffing costs and simplified operations will permit the trains to be run at comparable cost to now, requiring only marginal increases in rider-ship to break even.
What is all these splits at Oxford going to do to the station out of interest? You are going to need conflicting shunt moves galore across the station to transfer the set into position for the return service, that will require an extra crew be maintained at oxford, adding yet more staff costs.

Fuel costs are not really that high in terms of the general cost of running the railway, and cab vehicles will tend to be more expensive than intermediate vehicles.
Class 180s are obviously far cheaper to run than HSTs for a variety of reasons including fuel and track access, Turbos even more so.

The cost differential between running a 9-car IEP and a pair of 5-car IEPs that split en route is far less clear.

You don't need to fill them all - oh, so that's solved the problem then, even if you don't actually know how they will be operated, nor what the costs are.

What I do know is there is no need for 600-seat trains off-peak beyond Oxford and Swindon, nor is there ever likely to be in such trains' entire working lives.

Oxford station is going to be rebuilt, with extra through platforms a priority, allowing the removal of most of the current shunting, with splitting and joining of trains taking place in the platforms over a short period of time, same as the process as Cambridge described by transmanche back up the thread

I think the same happens on King's Cross-Kings Lynn services. A unit is dropped off at Cambridge at about xx35 and sits there waiting for the next up service from Kings Lynn to be attached at about xx44. That must save two(?) units.

Whilst you say that the French split and join TGVs en-route - which is true - I'm not aware of there being any 5 coach TGVs?

Who said anything about five cars? The point I was addressing was the one Rhydgaled endlessly repeats about how terrible coupling up any kind of non-gangwayed trains is, although train operators here and abroad will persist in doing it. The French use pairs of 2+8 TGVs, to get 700-plus seat formations.

Personally, I think Swindon - Cheltenham/Gloucester - Newport makes sense anyway, since there'll be an hourly Intercity train Swindon - Cheltenham and hopefully an hourly service from Cheltenham to Cardiff/Swansea, plus the diversionary aspect. I agree on time frames meaning it can't be done in CP5, but most of the routes DaFT want bi-mode IEP for (Hull, Weston-Super-Mare, Cheltenham and Harrogate) should be wired in early CP6 in my opinion, provided the currently annouced work doesn't overflow into CP6.

Did you bother to look at that stuff I linked to about the study into wires west of Newbury? A couple of short passenger trains an hour and "diversionary aspects" do not make a viable case for electrification. Only when the case is made for XC wiring between Birmingham and Bristol will you see catenary at Cheltenham and Gloucester, because you have to have a critical mass of traffic to make it pay. This is easily achieved on the core GW routes that are to be wired - but wiring the likes of Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester is likely to require converting freight flows to and from South Wales to electric traction as well

 

[starrymarkb]

There are also pairs of 2+10 TGV Atlantique which must be an impressive length

 

[transmanche]

There are also pairs of 2+10 TGV Atlantique which must be an impressive length

About 475m I believe.

Even more impressive (although slightly shorter at 400m) is a pair of 2+10 TGV Duplex!

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Did you bother to look at that stuff I linked to about the study into wires west of Newbury? A couple of short passenger trains an hour and "diversionary aspects" do not make a viable case for electrification. Only when the case is made for XC wiring between Birmingham and Bristol will you see catenary at Cheltenham and Gloucester, because you have to have a critical mass of traffic to make it pay. This is easily achieved on the core GW routes that are to be wired - but wiring the likes of Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester is likely to require converting freight flows to and from South Wales to electric traction as well

The Network Rail Electrification RUS gives a BCR of 5.1 for Cross country wiring following completion of the GWML, MML and North Transpennine. Interestingly it also gives wiring of the Berks and Hants line from Newbury to Cogload Junction a positive financial case following completion of cross country electrification to Plymouth.