New TPE Train Discussion

[deltic08]

Which out of the electrification of the TPE routes or electrification of the Midland Mainline is likely to be finished first?

Not sure if this is how it is going to work, but for me if any 125mph bi - mode trains go to TPE and then move on, I am suspecting they will move on to the MML possibly?

Glasgow/Edinburgh to Inverness/Aberdeen to replace life expired HSTs.

 

[Dave1987]

Really ? Last I looked there are 347 bi-mode carriages on delivery for the IEP contract, plus another 173 for First for Great Western, plus another 25 for Hull Trains... Oh, plus another huge order for bi-mode trains, probably based on the AT300 design... There's no "we will see" it's happening my dear chap

Well from what I read for the IEP contract Hitachi were the only manufacturer that offered to give the DFT what they wanted (along with the factory at Newton Aycliffe). The comment from the DFT to Bombardier was something along the lines of "don't even bother tendering a design involving drags off the wires" even though Bombardier and others knew that that was the most efficient way of doing it. So if your theory is correct that means Hitachi will be gaining contract after contract over the next decade or so. And with Newton Aycliffe full with IEP and trains for ScotRail that would mean the trains being built abroad. I'm sure that will go down well with the press and the public. So we will see how many are built. I doubt they will be ubiquitous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Presumably because most of their network is electrified and they don't have many plans to electrify more of it?

Well if its more efficient to have bi-modes as people on here are making out then surely Germany would be embracing this tech.

See the discussion on loading gauge - basically trains need to be redesigned to fit our smaller loading gauge (the largest possible size a train can be and still fit through tunnels, bridges etc)Loading gauge thread

But they are making up for that with (what I believe is stupid) high floors. The rest of the tech should be transferable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well if its more efficient to have bi-modes as people on here are making out then surely Germany would be embracing this tech.

Germany has much more of its network electrified than we do.

 

[TRAX]

And Germany is not, contrary to popular belief, ahead of everyone else in Europe.

 

[Haydn1971]

The comment from the DFT to Bombardier was something along the lines of "don't even bother tendering a design involving drags off the wires" even though Bombardier and others knew that that was the most efficient way of doing it.

Most efficient in the opinion of a a company that couldn't deliver what a customer wants perhaps ?

So if your theory is correct that means Hitachi will be gaining contract after contract over the next decade or so.

Not my theory, it's the reality for a company that could deliver what the first customer (DfT) wanted.

And with Newton Aycliffe full with IEP and trains for ScotRail that would mean the trains being built abroad. I'm sure that will go down well with the press and the public. So we will see how many are built. I doubt they will be ubiquitous.

Goodness me, just imagine, something built outside the UK, like the computer, smart phone or tablet you are using right now.

Well if its more efficient to have bi-modes as people on here are making out then surely Germany would be embracing this tech.

As pointed out above, different countries have different problems that require different solutions - The UK has a specific problem that Germany does not

But they are making up for that with (what I believe is stupid) high floors. The rest of the tech should be transferable.

Dave, don't ever use a bus, you'll have an aneurism if you see what's going off with floors on buses !

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The comment from the DFT to Bombardier was something along the lines of "don't even bother tendering a design involving drags off the wires" even though Bombardier and others knew that that was the most efficient way of doing it. So if your theory is correct that means Hitachi will be gaining contract after contract over the next decade or so. And with Newton Aycliffe full with IEP and trains for ScotRail that would mean the trains being built abroad. I'm sure that will go down well with the press and the public. So we will see how many are built. I doubt they will be ubiquitous.

Well if its more efficient to have bi-modes as people on here are making out then surely Germany would be embracing this tech.

Dragging units away from the wires didn't make sense for IEP thanks to the rather unique geography involved. It was looked at extensively, people spent lots of time reviewing the Class 57 and Pendolino drags through North Wales, and it always came out behind a bi-mode unit in terms of cost, journey time and flexibility.

Scotland and Aberdeen presents the Forth and Tay Bridges, with speed limits for locomotives, the South West has the Tamar Bridge and the South Devon Banks. I'm sure there are people here who looked at track layouts, signalling and shunting needed to attach and detach locomotives from EMUs at various places, and how it just drained capacity away.

That was before we managed to progress the electrification RUS and firmly embed electrification in the consciousness of the DfT and all our colleagues at Network Rail (the root cause of the GWep catastrophe is people being told for 20 years "we won't electrify anything ever again"). That needs units which can change from electric to diesel at different stations as electrification progresses, there's no way at all now to continue installing the track layouts, signalling and facilities to attach and detach diesel units as wiring progresses.

There's no doubt at all now that bi-mode is the only coherent, sensible option, as counter intuitive it might appear.

 

[Dave1987]

Dragging units away from the wires didn't make sense for IEP thanks to the rather unique geography involved. It was looked at extensively, people spent lots of time reviewing the Class 57 and Pendolino drags through North Wales, and it always came out behind a bi-mode unit in terms of cost, journey time and flexibility.

Scotland and Aberdeen presents the Forth and Tay Bridges, with speed limits for locomotives, the South West has the Tamar Bridge and the South Devon Banks. I'm sure there are people here who looked at track layouts, signalling and shunting needed to attach and detach locomotives from EMUs at various places, and how it just drained capacity away.

That was before we managed to progress the electrification RUS and firmly embed electrification in the consciousness of the DfT and all our colleagues at Network Rail (the root cause of the GWep catastrophe is people being told for 20 years "we won't electrify anything ever again")

There's no doubt at all now that bi-mode is the only coherent, sensible option, as counter intuitive it might appear.

OK so firstly why do some very very well respected journalists disagree with you?

From why I have been told/read the model 9 minutes was used for coupling with drags when in reality it would take no longer than it does to couple two EMU's now. And the costs of an off the shelf EMU along with some locos would have been far far cheaper than what the DFT negotiated with Hitachi (even though Claire Perry seems determined to keep saying a good deal was negotiated, they again when does a politician ever admit they are wrong?). And with an off the shelf EMU you would have a flat floor and of course bi-modes waste energy constantly lugging around the bits they are not using.

Yourselves at the DFT put a huge amount of emphasis on this high output machine and then went out and placed the order with Hitachi so McLoughlin could make his big announcement (like politicians love to do!) without actually doing the research first! And as a result £3bn later.................. I think at the PAC the head of Network Rail said they didn't know how much it should cost and didn't really know what was a good price per STC.

 

[RobShipway]

CrossCountry?

Why would they move to Cross Country?

The number of bi - modes that TPE would be receiving I believe would be a small amount so I can see them going to MML first, perhaps before later on going to Cross Country.

The reason being for the bi - modes to go to Cross Country, you would need the path from Basingstoke to Oxford with OHLE. I do not see OHLE between Basingstoke and Reading happening until 2030, that being the case then the Voyagers plus some of the class 222's would be sufficient to keep the routes going.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Why would they move to Cross Country?

The number of bi - modes that TPE would be receiving I believe would be a small amount so I can see them going to MML first, perhaps before later on going to Cross Country.

The reason being for the bi - modes to go to Cross Country, you would need the path from Basingstoke to Oxford with OHLE. I do not see OHLE between Basingstoke and Reading happening until 2030, that being the case then the Voyagers plus some of the class 222's would be sufficient to keep the routes going.

Southcote to Basingstoke is on page 99 of the Hendy delivery programme, but to recap, GRIP3 is targeted for June 2018, GRIP4 for 2019 and work commencing early in CP6 with infrastructure delivered in CP6, so pre 2024 (I'd put some money on December 2022/May 2023).

Rolling stock strategy here is complex - the CrossCountry franchise and the East Midlands franchise need to replace their HST sets prior to the DDA compliance date of 2020, but neither of the two franchises suit the new franchisees coming in and dealing with the stock problem, so either DfT or the existing franchisees are going to have to deal with it.

What will happen is going to revolve around what the DfT wants to do with the Class 222 units released by MML electrification. If the Class 222 units move to CrossCountry, they won't need bi-mode units, no matter how well suited such a unit will be to the future electrified network and CrossCountry's routes.

 

[edwin_m]

Why would they move to Cross Country?

The number of bi - modes that TPE would be receiving I believe would be a small amount so I can see them going to MML first, perhaps before later on going to Cross Country.

They will need to stay on TPE at least until completion of the Manchester-Leeds electrification, which is December 2022 according to the latest Hendy update. This is only one year ahead of the completion of Midland electrification, so not really worth the hassle of moving the bi-modes and training all the crews for that relatively short period. TPE will probably still need some bi-modes after 2022 anyway, because some of the eastern branches probably still won't be electrified.

The reason being for the bi - modes to go to Cross Country, you would need the path from Basingstoke to Oxford with OHLE. I do not see OHLE between Basingstoke and Reading happening until 2030, that being the case then the Voyagers plus some of the class 222's would be sufficient to keep the routes going.

If moved to CrossCountry after TP electrification they could use electric power all the way from Leeds/Doncaster to Glasgow straight away, which seems worth doing if there are enough units to transfer to avoid a micro-fleet situation. The proportion of electrified operation would increase as more schemes were completed, ultimately reaching Derby-Glasgow and Manchester-Basingstoke assuming all the schemes in Hendy are completed except the Southampton DC-AC conversion which appears to have fallen by the wayside.

The alternative would be a new fleet of bi-modes for Cross-Country, as for the foreseeable future nearly all their services will include significant running under the wires but also third rail or unelectrified sections. Given that the TPE units couldn't replace the whole XC fleet this looks like it might happen at some point.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Dave, the point about the excessive time to attach locos is well made and I, in bidding, have looked at this in detail. In theory, if you have a loco is able to auto couple and replicates all the systems in the EMU, including door interlocks, you can do it much quicker than 9 minutes. It is much easier if the loco and EMU are closely related, manufacturer wise.

But that pre-supposes you have the ability to run a full length train into the platform under permissive conditions with the loco waiting. If you can't, which is the case in a surprisingly large number of locations, then you have to wait until the loco is signalled either onto the front or rear, blowing your time advantage and maybe also your path forward.

Of course with a bi mode unit, you don't need to faff about with precious platform occupancy time, the risk of losing a path or extra crew on the loco only move. You have a unit that will go anywhere when it goes Pete Tong under the wires without having to worry where my locos are or how to get them in position for the drags.

Now a manufacturer is offering a 125mph product, it is no surprise that the queue for that unit is growing and TPE is likely to get long term use out of them.

P.s. Although I have enormous respect for the journos you refer to, i don't necessarily regard their views as gospel!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Southampton DC-AC conversion.

It's still being planned for CP6 but with no firm commitment to fund it, the remaining Electric Spine components have been separated out into individual schemes, loosely grouped under the Electric Spine umbrella.

Bedford to Bletchley electrification has moved into CP6 too (as should be widely known) and although running simultaneously with East West Rail (Electrification is technically its own project and EWR is only providing a network with passive provision for electrification).

 

[The Ham]

Dave, the point about the excessive time to attach locos is well made and I, in bidding, have looked at this in detail. In theory, if you have a loco is able to auto couple and replicates all the systems in the EMU, including door interlocks, you can do it much quicker than 9 minutes. It is much easier if the loco and EMU are closely related, manufacturer wise.

But that pre-supposes you have the ability to run a full length train into the platform under permissive conditions with the loco waiting. If you can't, which is the case in a surprisingly large number of locations, then you have to wait until the loco is signalled either onto the front or rear, blowing your time advantage and maybe also your path forward.

Of course with a bi mode unit, you don't need to faff about with precious platform occupancy time, the risk of losing a path or extra crew on the loco only move. You have a unit that will go anywhere when it goes Pete Tong under the wires without having to worry where my locos are or how to get them in position for the drags.

Now a manufacturer is offering a 125mph product, it is no surprise that the queue for that unit is growing and TPE is likely to get long term use out of them.

P.s. Although I have enormous respect for the journos you refer to, i don't necessarily regard their views as gospel!

Also, even the likes of SWT (who do it day in day out) timetable a few minutes for joining/splitting units so on the off chance it goes wrong the service doesn't run late (out very late).

Then there is the point that on the Cornish services the wires will stop at Newbury, do you then stop all the trains there to couple the loco up or do you do it at Reading and block other services? If you do it at Newbury the new trains could have taken 10 minutes longer rather than the 15 minutes quicker than the AT300's are going to take.

15 minutes quicker could have a timetabled service of 3 hours to Plymouth (ideally the TOC would like to advertise it at 2:59 or slightly less to be sub 3 hours). As that has been an aspiration of the local politicians/businesses.

 

[northwichcat]

The number of bi - modes that TPE would be receiving I believe would be a small amount so I can see them going to MML first, perhaps before later on going to Cross Country.

MML electrification is scheduled for completion the year after Manchester to York electrification, will EMT's successor really want to have bi-modes for a year or less? Or are you suggesting they'll want bi-modes to cover diversions and to run occasional services to non-electrified destinations for the forseeable future after Sheffield gets wires?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would they move to Cross Country?

Because some of their services run both under the wires and not.

The reason being for the bi - modes to go to Cross Country, you would need the path from Basingstoke to Oxford with OHLE. I do not see OHLE between Basingstoke and Reading happening until 2030, that being the case then the Voyagers plus some of the class 222's would be sufficient to keep the routes going.

They do need more rolling stock, and 222s would indeed do the job, but why not bi-modes when some of their routes are already part-wired? They have more than one route

 

[Philip Phlopp]

MML electrification is scheduled for completion the year after Manchester to York electrification, will EMT's successor really want to have bi-modes for a year or less? Or are you suggesting they'll want bi-modes to cover diversions and to run occasional services to non-electrified destinations for the forseeable future after Sheffield gets wires?

The suggestion (drifting towards a developing plan) would be EMT gets bi-mode units in 2019 as replacements for their HST sets, joined in 2023 by electric units.

5 car bi-mode AT300 units should be able to run as far as Bedford on electric, possibly subject to the reliability enhancements (i.e headspan removal) being completed by December 2019 (St Pancras to Bedford South Junction is being cleared for 2 pantographs @ 125mph and 3 pantographs @ 110mph, which required Series 1 OLE to be installed where linespeed requires it).

 

[Haydn1971]

The suggestion (drifting towards a developing plan) would be EMT gets bi-mode units in 2019 as replacements for their HST sets, joined in 2023 by electric units.

Sounds logical, I'm half hopeful to see some reformed and refurbished 222's cascaded to a Nottingham-Liverpool service, hopefully as six car units, with a first class cabin in a single driving unit, might get about 260-270 bums on seats with some reworking.

 

[Class 170101]

The way I see it Manchester to York is being electrified but Scarborough, Middlesbrough are not, whether Hull is now Hull Trains are getting bi-mode is questionable and the diversionary routes for North TPE (via Warrington, Brighouse and Wakefield) are not yet being electrified.

Because of the above I can't see North TPE being operated only by fully electric trains for a very long time. However, I do think they could switch their Newcastle services to electric only which will free up some bi-modes for other partially electrified services. Maybe those would be the TPE routes which will still have 185s after the new order, maybe it'll be the hourly Manchester to South Coast services it's impossible to say especially when we don't even know the exact trains First TPE are getting.

Hull Trains will still want Bi-modes even if their core route is wired simply because they will want to run trains around engineering works and failed trains etc, most of these diversionary routes are unwired and as you pointed out out may be unwired for several years.

Because the politicians know they can push back electrification schemes will little consequence. Bi-modes are a transport politicians wet dream as they don't have to commit and meet deadlines on electrification and can "pause" projects and get away with it.

I doubt it as they are still more expensive than fully electric trains. Whats the track wear etc going to be like with them? NR will almost certainly have to carry out more maintenance - and need more government money to pay for it. I see them as merely a stop gap until the wires are up in a particular area - leading a more nomadic lifestyle.

Why would they move to Cross Country?

The number of bi - modes that TPE would be receiving I believe would be a small amount so I can see them going to MML first, perhaps before later on going to Cross Country.

The reason being for the bi - modes to go to Cross Country, you would need the path from Basingstoke to Oxford with OHLE. I do not see OHLE between Basingstoke and Reading happening until 2030, that being the case then the Voyagers plus some of the class 222's would be sufficient to keep the routes going.

Cross Country will either need replacement trains or a PRM-TSI upgrade for HSTs

They will need to stay on TPE at least until completion of the Manchester-Leeds electrification, which is December 2022 according to the latest Hendy update. This is only one year ahead of the completion of Midland electrification, so not really worth the hassle of moving the bi-modes and training all the crews for that relatively short period. TPE will probably still need some bi-modes after 2022 anyway, because some of the eastern branches probably still won't be electrified.



If moved to CrossCountry after TP electrification they could use electric power all the way from Leeds/Doncaster to Glasgow straight away, which seems worth doing if there are enough units to transfer to avoid a micro-fleet situation. The proportion of electrified operation would increase as more schemes were completed, ultimately reaching Derby-Glasgow and Manchester-Basingstoke assuming all the schemes in Hendy are completed except the Southampton DC-AC conversion which appears to have fallen by the wayside.

The alternative would be a new fleet of bi-modes for Cross-Country, as for the foreseeable future nearly all their services will include significant running under the wires but also third rail or unelectrified sections. Given that the TPE units couldn't replace the whole XC fleet this looks like it might happen at some point.

Could the Bi-modes be made to work on 3rd Rail as well (tri-mode?) I reckon you might be able to run AC/DC if Basingstoke to Coventry was wired on the Manchester to Bournemouth services. All three power modes might be required for Southampton to Newcastle services.
TPE would still need Bi-modes if the Calder Valley isn't wired for the foreseeable future nevermind the branches previously referred to.

Personally I think the DC/AC conversion should wait for other non-electrified lines but there you are.

 

[Haydn1971]

Hull Trains will still want Bi-modes even if their core route is wired simply because they will want to run trains around engineering works and failed trains etc, most of these diversionary routes are unwired and as you pointed out out may be unwired for several years.

TPE would still need Bi-modes if the Calder Valley isn't wired for the foreseeable future nevermind the branches previously referred to.

Interestingly, could we see bi-modes transition into being everyday EMU's with a single limp home power pack installed, with other power packs retained for rapid deployment so that in preparation for planned maintenance operations. A number of units would have the power packs inserted the night before in the depot making bi-mode units for over night or over weekend closures. Unplanned closures might take a bit of time to sort but I'm expecting the power packs to be swappable in 20-30 minutes, almost like a removable hard drive.

 

[D365]

Hull Trains will still want Bi-modes even if their core route is wired simply because they will want to run trains around engineering works and failed trains etc, most of these diversionary routes are unwired and as you pointed out out may be unwired for several years.

The upshot over 'pure' electric 80x units being that they can run at full speed off the wires, rather than at a 'limp speed'.

I doubt it as they are still more expensive than fully electric trains. Whats the track wear etc going to be like with them? NR will almost certainly have to carry out more maintenance - and need more government money to pay for it. I see them as merely a stop gap until the wires are up in a particular area - leading a more nomadic lifestyle.

That's why I see the electrification programme continuing, with the government drive to cut operating costs.

Personally I think the DC/AC conversion should wait for other non-electrified lines but there you are.

The reason why Basingstoke-Southhampton and BML conversions have been proposed is because 're-electrifying' with OHLE is more cost-effective, with major third rail components coming to the end of their life and traffic density at an all-time high.

 

[RobShipway]

Hull Trains will still want Bi-modes even if their core route is wired simply because they will want to run trains around engineering works and failed trains etc, most of these diversionary routes are unwired and as you pointed out out may be unwired for several years.


I doubt it as they are still more expensive than fully electric trains. Whats the track wear etc going to be like with them? NR will almost certainly have to carry out more maintenance - and need more government money to pay for it. I see them as merely a stop gap until the wires are up in a particular area - leading a more nomadic lifestyle.


Cross Country will either need replacement trains or a PRM-TSI upgrade for HSTs



Could the Bi-modes be made to work on 3rd Rail as well (tri-mode?) I reckon you might be able to run AC/DC if Basingstoke to Coventry was wired on the Manchester to Bournemouth services. All three power modes might be required for Southampton to Newcastle services.
TPE would still need Bi-modes if the Calder Valley isn't wired for the foreseeable future nevermind the branches previously referred to.

Personally I think the DC/AC conversion should wait for other non-electrified lines but there you are.

Well, since the Class 800/801 are based on parts that are from the class 395's surely all that would need to be added is DC shoe gear I believe such that they could be made to be able to work on 3rd rail. However, I don't believe that you would be able to use the same spec of class 800/801, as I do not believe that there is anywhere that could take the 26 metres length of the carriages on the 3rd rail network, so you would have to be using stock in similar size to the class 395's, but as well as having AC/DC power it would also need diesel power underneath and like the class 220/221's would have to be because of the weight an engine under each car for power to weight ratio.

 

[D365]

Well, since the Class 800/801 are based on parts that are from the class 395's surely all that would need to be added is DC shoe gear I believe such that they could be made to be able to work on 3rd rail.

Do you have any idea about the electrical specification of a Class 80x unit, in order to quantify your statement?

However, I don't believe that you would be able to use the same spec of class 800/801, as I do not believe that there is anywhere that could take the 26 metres length of the carriages on the 3rd rail network, so you would have to be using stock in similar size to the class 395's but as well as having AC/DC power it would also need diesel power underneath and like the class 220/221's would have to be because of the weight an engine under each car for power to weight ratio.

You've made this 'suggestion' before, running a Class 80x under DC power, and I'll ask you again: What's your point?

 

[Haydn1971]

You've made this 'suggestion' before, running a Class 80x under DC power, and I'll ask you again: What's your point?

I'm a bit baffled by this too, surely just using diesel power on 3rd rail would be more sensible given that few XC units would operate in the 3rd rail network

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Do you have any idea about the electrical specification of a Class 80x unit, in order to quantify your statement?

They have different bogies, no word from Hitachi as to whether they have third rail shoe gear attachment points and suitable wire runs underbody to cope with 750V DC live cables.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Because the politicians know they can push back electrification schemes will little consequence. Bi-modes are a transport politicians wet dream as they don't have to commit and meet deadlines on electrification and can "pause" projects and get away with it.

You'd rather they cancelled them, do you? Or for trains to be sitting in sidings unused for years?

The push-backs happened for practical reasons, and would have happened regardless of bimodes existing or not.

 

[RobShipway]

Do you have any idea about the electrical specification of a Class 80x unit, in order to quantify your statement?



You've made this 'suggestion' before, running a Class 80x under DC power, and I'll ask you again: What's your point?

Okay, if you look at the turn in from the east into Bournemouth station you will see that 23 metre coaches only just make the turn and the same can also be said for the turn on the tracks into Southampton Central prior to going through the tunnel going into the station from the eastbound.

The reason I state the above, is a) I have been on a class 220 a few times into Bournemouth and it has only just about made the turn with the carriages being 23.86 metres each and also b) I previously had a discussion on this forum when the class 220's where introduced where it was stated to me, that no carriages that are larger than 23 metres would be able to enter either Southampton or Bournemouth stations.

The above being the case, I cannot see class 800/801 IEP carriages at 26 metres plus being used on trains that would be either ending or originating from Southampton or Bournemouth. Hence, why the carriages would have to be the same size as the class 395's.

Also, do not forget that the HST trains that had previous worked on the Cross country routes had to have smaller bogies if I recall so that they could be used on third rail tracks. I believe that you will find if the 26 metre carriages can fit, that the bogies for the Class 800/801 to be able to work on 3rd rail tracks would have to be using smaller bogies than they would be using on the GWML or ECML.

 

[D365]

You're getting carried away

The implication of my question was, why would you want (or need) to add third-rail capability to an AT300? For the added cost (bearing in mind the power infrastructure would need further upgrade), what would it bring over diesel?

The bogie situation was a matter that can be pinned on British Rail.

 

[RobShipway]

You're getting carried away

The implication of my question was, why would you want (or need) to add third-rail capability to an AT300? For the added cost (bearing in mind the power infrastructure would need further upgrade), what would it bring over diesel?

The bogie situation was a matter that can be pinned on British Rail.

Well, Class 170101 stated all three power modes would be required. I was just following on from his point. So it is not me that is getting carried away...

I was just stating a few points as to why using AT300 would not work on trains down to Southampton and Bournemouth, such that the carriages would have to be no different size than those used by the class 395 potentially or if they could be used they would have to be used with a different type of bogie in similar style to the class 395 and if you are going to that length, well you might as well add in that they can be used by 3rd rail power.

I cannot see the OHLE from Basingstoke to Southampton will be done prior to 2030 given the delays to GWML and other routes electrification plans and I do not believe that enough diesel power would be left for the AT300's to power themselves down from Reading to Southampton/Bournemouth and then back again having previously been used on some parts of the route prior to get to Reading from the North.

Hence that I suspect that no AT300's will actually go on to the 3rd rail network unless they are able to get 3rd rail power and as such the class 220/221's or even the class 222's will continue to do the Cross Country services from the Hampshire/Dorset until at least 2030.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Also, do not forget that the HST trains that had previous worked on the Cross country routes had to have smaller bogies if I recall so that they could be used on third rail tracks. I believe that you will find if the 26 metre carriages can fit, that the bogies for the Class 800/801 to be able to work on 3rd rail tracks would have to be using smaller bogies than they would be using on the GWML or ECML.

Route clearance work can be carried out - Class 80x units don't strictly fit on the planned routes they'll be operating on yet, so there's route clearance work ongoing.

There's no bogie issue with Class 80x units operating on third rail - no "small bogies" are necessary.

The bogie issue is strictly with Mark 3 stock, and concerns the swing links which are a component of the BT10 bogie, there are LSL (long swing link) and SSL (short swing link) versions of the bogie, the long swing links can come too close to the third rail and short out, so the SSL variant was designed. The bogie itself is otherwise unaltered.

There's no smaller bogies needed, the BP10 bogies on the powercars are fine, as is every other BR bogie, including the Advanced Suburban Bogie (under the Class 220).

 

[D365]

Robbies, I don't know how you can think to suspect that an AT300 will have not enough "diesel power" left. Horsepower doesn't miraculously disappear, unless you are referring to fuel tank capacity, which even if smaller on an 802 than a Voyager, would be negated by the ability to run off overhead.