GWR West Fleet IEP Cascade Update

[Philip Phlopp]

I am sure someone will come up with a plan. Stick the electrical bits in the former guards comp and that would make room for a bigger silencer.

Not sure drivers would be happy though!

It's height for the EGR manifold, I believe. The engine, as is, is too tall to fit our loading gauge now.

 

[43096]

The major problem they face (other than fatigue and rust) is that they can't currently be re-engined - the latest MTU 16V4000 model has an exhaust assembly which doesn't fit within an HST power car bodyshell, and nothing else currently manufactured by CAT, MTU etc fits either. That leaves them at some risk concerning emissions targets.

MAN do a suitable engine. It's called VP185....

The version as fitted to the EMT fleet is not (quite) compliant to current standards, but there is an upgrade with electronic fuel injection and new governors that is Stage 3b compliant. It also uses less fuel and oil than the MTU and goes longer between overhauls.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Please explain what is satisfactory about running lots of empty coaches around all the time - you have never actually satisfactorily addressed this point in several years of going on and on about it...

It depends from whose perspective you are looking at it. All things considered, there is no satisfactory solution to the problem of running services above 110mph which have unequal loadings along the route. You can either:

• use portion working, or make passengers change to a shorter train, which is satisfactory for railway operators but not passengers, or
• you run a long train throughout and accept the light loadings over part of the route, which is satisfactory for passengers but not railway operators

Obviously, you have decided that it is more important for the solution to be satisfactory for operators, personally I would rather the solution was satisfactory for passengers, hence our disagreement.

Really? It's not pointless to keep going on and on about this when the trains have been ordered and are being built?

Not pointless because the 5-car new trains could presumably be used on Cardiff/Bristol-Plymouth/Penzance services instead of the short IC125s, instead of on services out of Paddington.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

MAN do a suitable engine. It's called VP185....

The version as fitted to the EMT fleet is not (quite) compliant to current standards, but there is an upgrade with electronic fuel injection and new governors that is Stage 3b compliant. It also uses less fuel and oil than the MTU and goes longer between overhauls.

The last I heard of the VP185, MAN had decided not to certify it for Euro 3b, and had sold the rights to a Chinese manufacturer.

 

[jimm]

What frustrates me is that there seems to be no joined up thinking.

FGW want 4/5 car trains
XC Need more than 4/5 car trains

GWR wants four-coach trains that can carry about 300 people, which is what a four-car, all standard class HST would shift - and that's with the low-density seating layout. Even if you converted a 220's first class coach to standard, you'd struggle to get many more than 220 seats in them.

The general consensus is around 15 years from the time they're modified with power doors and return to service. That takes you to around 2034 (end CP8) with the possibility of maybe managing through to 2039 (end CP9) depending on diagrammed mileages and ultimately their reliability.

Chiltern reckoned that on the basis of taking a long hard look at the bodyshells of their Mk3s during the power door work back in 2012 that they were good for about 20 more years, so I would tend expect the mid-2030s is really the outer limit of their potential lifespan.

It depends from whose perspective you are looking at it. All things considered, there is no satisfactory solution to the problem of running services above 110mph which have unequal loadings along the route. You can either:

• use portion working, or make passengers change to a shorter train, which is satisfactory for railway operators but not passengers, or
• you run a long train throughout and accept the light loadings over part of the route, which is satisfactory for passengers but not railway operators

Obviously, you have decided that it is more important for the solution to be satisfactory for operators, personally I would rather the solution was satisfactory for passengers, hence our disagreement.

I'm a passenger too and somehow, for my entire life, I have somehow coped with this terrible imposition on passengers, such as first generation dmus splitting and joining at places like Shrewsbury and Machynlleth, Turbos at Oxford, blah, blah, blah.

Give passengers the right information - when they book, on the platform and on the train - and they aren't all as dumb as you seem to think they are.

A modest number of passengers may be in the 'wrong' set ahead of a split, but when trains split, the front set doesn't usually take off like a scalded cat the instant the couplers part. Railway staff are, amazingly enough, also alert to the need to tell people what's going on and help them make the switch. And if you have large/heavy bags, it is usually a lot easier to get off a train and walk down the platform than try to struggle down a train through narrow gangways.

Some may ignore all efforts to tell them what's going on and end up going in the wrong direction but that can just as easily happen on services formed of sets with corridor connections.

By the way, it is the passengers who have to foot the bill for running around all the empty coaches you seem to find so 'satisfactory' - passengers might find a more cost-effective way of operating, which keeps down costs and their fares, a more satisfactory option for their bank balances.

Not pointless because the 5-car new trains could presumably be used on Cardiff/Bristol-Plymouth/Penzance services instead of the short IC125s, instead of on services out of Paddington.

Eh? What are you on about?

 

[JamesRowden]

It depends from whose perspective you are looking at it. All things considered, there is no satisfactory solution to the problem of running services above 110mph which have unequal loadings along the route. You can either:

• use portion working, or make passengers change to a shorter train, which is satisfactory for railway operators but not passengers, or
• you run a long train throughout and accept the light loadings over part of the route, which is satisfactory for passengers but not railway operators

Obviously, you have decided that it is more important for the solution to be satisfactory for operators, personally I would rather the solution was satisfactory for passengers, hence our disagreement.

Not pointless because the 5-car new trains could presumably be used on Cardiff/Bristol-Plymouth/Penzance services instead of the short IC125s, instead of on services out of Paddington.

Passengers would probably prefer a 5-car train every 30 minutes to a 9-car train every hour.

 

[Harbornite]

Hence why I said a shared fleet with XC. I also said the Birmingham / Derby starters and finishers should be Voyagers and not HSTs to ensure that this happens.

In any event the HSTs would need to finish at Penzance, Plymouth, Leeds, Edinburgh and perhaps Aberdeen, Bristol and Newcastle to visit HST servicing / maintenance at those locations.

Yet earlier you were saying that FGW should be using Voyagers? Why not let XC use their voyagers and FGW can continue to use their HSTs. XC could get additional HSTs as they are cascaded from other operators.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Not pointless because the 5-car new trains could presumably be used on Cardiff/Bristol-Plymouth/Penzance services instead of the short IC125s, instead of on services out of Paddington.

Eh? What are you on about?

I'm suggesting that some of the new 5-car trains currently being built for services out of Paddington could instead be used on the Cardiff-Bristol-Exeter-Plymouth-Penzance axis instead. That would leave the Paddington services to Plymouth/Penzance free to be worked by longer trains (IC125s). Simple as that.

Passengers would probably prefer a 5-car train every 30 minutes to a 9-car train every hour.

In theroy yes, in practice I expect 5-car trains are likely to be often full and standing out of Paddington, at least as far as Reading, before long with frequency improvements and the sparks effect attracting more passengers. Unless they find a way to keep most of the Reading-Paddington passengers off the long-distance services of course.

 

[Mintona]

In theroy yes, in practice I expect 5-car trains are likely to be often full and standing out of Paddington, at least as far as Reading, before long with frequency improvements and the sparks effect attracting more passengers. Unless they find a way to keep most of the Reading-Paddington passengers off the long-distance services of course.

These things say hello:

http://www.railjournal.com/media/k2/items/cache/9b1083fa843a33613ae79ba4dc492200_XL.jpg

 

[Rich McLean]

The 4 coach HSTs are planned for the following diagram pattern at 1tph

Cardiff - Taunton - Cardiff - Penzance
or
Penzance - Cardiff - Taunton - Cardiff

There will only be running south of Taunton once every 2 hours for most of the day, with the first two from Plymouth and one from Exeter running to Cardiff within an hour of each other and the last evening services from Cardiff all running to Plymouth and Exeter.
5 sets at Laira, 3 at on the Marsh and 1 at Exeter overnight. plus 2 in for maintenance at Laira. There are 9 diagrams for 11 sets

Also a 158 will work down to Exeter in the morning and one back to Bristol in the evening for balancing purposes. Also 158s will be getting their heavy work done at the new Exeter Depot so a useful way to get them to and from Bristol

Having 5 Car voyagers share the work is a non starter, but they may prove useful by taking passengers heading to Cornwall to avoid them having to change trains at Taunton and/or Plymouth for connections

 

[JamesRowden]

In theroy yes, in practice I expect 5-car trains are likely to be often full and standing out of Paddington, at least as far as Reading, before long with frequency improvements and the sparks effect attracting more passengers. Unless they find a way to keep most of the Reading-Paddington passengers off the long-distance services of course.

Running more trains allows trains to run non-stop through Reading without affecting the quality of services at Reading. Longer distance passengers would be attracted towards the faster journey times.

 

[jimm]

I'm suggesting that some of the new 5-car trains currently being built for services out of Paddington could instead be used on the Cardiff-Bristol-Exeter-Plymouth-Penzance axis instead. That would leave the Paddington services to Plymouth/Penzance free to be worked by longer trains (IC125s). Simple as that.

Why do you persist in ignoring facts on the ground, like the orders for AT300s for the West Country - HSTs will soon be history on long-distance GWR trains, so get over it.

In case you have forgotten, the pointless obsession I was referring to was your one about corridor connections between sets. Not what stock will work Bristol-Penzance regional duties - not that it will be brand new 125mph electric trains anyway.

In theroy yes, in practice I expect 5-car trains are likely to be often full and standing out of Paddington, at least as far as Reading, before long with frequency improvements and the sparks effect attracting more passengers. Unless they find a way to keep most of the Reading-Paddington passengers off the long-distance services of course.

Do you? At what times of the day? If you think there are going to be lots of five-car sets arriving at Paddington in the morning peak or leaving in the afternoon peak, forget it.

The following is a direct quote from a Powerpoint presentation GWR used across the network at stakeholder and rail user group events last year at the time of the start of the current direct award:

All peak trains will be formed of 9 or 10-car Class 800/801 trains

That was before the AT300/802 order was confirmed. We are still waiting to see if a few more 802s are ordered but Modern Railways seems adamant that if approved by DfT these will be for Oxford and Newbury fasts, so it seems reasonable to assume they will also be used in long formations in the peaks.

Off-peak, there will be plenty of extra capacity across the board - the nine-car sets aren't all suddenly going to disappear into the depot from 9am until 5pm or 387s revert to four-car running. And there will be extra long-distance services from December 2018 - Bristol goes to 4tph off-peak, in case you've forgotten, and the London-Cheltenham service goes hourly all day. If the extra 802 order is approved, all Oxford fasts now look like being 800 or 802 worked, with the option of adding/dropping sets from the Cotswold services at Oxford if it's capacity you're worried about.

And if we take the Reading commuters at their word - that what they want most of all in the world is a seat to sit in - then GWR does have a plan to get them off long-distance trains - 110mph Class 387 services starting from/terminating at Newbury/Didcot/Oxford, scarcely any slower than the IEPs to/from London, where their odds of getting a seat will be appreciably higher than on a long-distance train.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I'm suggesting that some of the new 5-car trains currently being built for services out of Paddington could instead be used on the Cardiff-Bristol-Exeter-Plymouth-Penzance axis instead. That would leave the Paddington services to Plymouth/Penzance free to be worked by longer trains (IC125s). Simple as that.

In theroy yes, in practice I expect 5-car trains are likely to be often full and standing out of Paddington, at least as far as Reading, before long with frequency improvements and the sparks effect attracting more passengers. Unless they find a way to keep most of the Reading-Paddington passengers off the long-distance services of course.

Agility Trains West are contracted to provide 9 and 10 car diagrams into and out of Paddington during the peaks.

That allows an increase in frequency for intermediate destinations which can be served by the 5 car sets heading out of London early in the morning to form 10 car sets to work into London during the morning peak, during the day, a mix of 5 and 9 car sets will work to get capacity into the right places to form 9 and 10 car sets at Paddington ready for the evening peak, and in the evening, the same intermediate destinations will gain further increases in frequency as the 10 car ex London trains split. What we will see is instead of 1 2+8 HST running to one destination, 5 cars of the 10 cars will split short and return to London, adding a new second service.

 

[Class 170101]

Yet earlier you were saying that FGW should be using Voyagers? Why not let XC use their voyagers and FGW can continue to use their HSTs. XC could get additional HSTs as they are cascaded from other operators.

Shared as in operating to / from Birmingham for maintenance.

So start in service from Birmingham and head south to Plymouth or Cardiff as an XC service and spend the rest of the day with FGW and the same in reverse.

I should point out that no one has said what would happen to thr spare Mark IIIs that become available as a result of the 2+4 conversion of HSTs as proposed. This is a criminal waste of capacity across the industry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere

Class 800 Publicity train

 

[swt_passenger]

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere

Class 800 Publicity train

Although that particular link is new there is a fair bit of info, (including photos and videos), about the publicity run in the last few pages of the Class 800 thread in the rolling stock section.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Shared as in operating to / from Birmingham for maintenance.

So start in service from Birmingham and head south to Plymouth or Cardiff as an XC service and spend the rest of the day with FGW and the same in reverse.

I should point out that no one has said what would happen to thr spare Mark IIIs that become available as a result of the 2+4 conversion of HSTs as proposed. This is a criminal waste of capacity across the industry.

It's not a criminal waste of capacity - we're intending to use 2+4, 2+5 and 2+6 HST sets (and more is likely to come, plus use of the Mark 4 stock) when they would otherwise have gone to be scrapped.

The HST sets have already been replaced on more than a like for like basis which will provide significant capacity uplift and an increase in service frequency.

These are extra carriages and extra seats over and above what was planned, yes, it's partially as a result of electrification delays, but does anybody really think the short HSTs at FGW will be replaced by the stock they're basically covering for or even that the stock they're covering for will be made available ?

The likelihood is that the short HST sets will be replaced in due course as if they were permanent capacity within each franchise.

 

[swt_passenger]

Today, 24/6/16, and info received from Fleet Engineering Manager in person. With the well known IEP delays...

Just re-read this part of the first post in this thread.

What are these 'well known" IEP delays? Isn't the problem more to do with there not being enough electrification in time to release the expected number of DMUs off routes that should be operated by EMUs - such as London to Oxford stoppers?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Some pics of Mk3 sleepers under construction here..


http://www.dawlishtrains.com/passenger.html

Note how weak the structure is without the bulkheads (it has to be supported inside).

Looks more like Jigs to ensure correct alignment for construction rather than a weak body.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

IEP = Intercity Express Programme.

GWEP = Great Western Electrification Programme (or project if you're naughty). The capitalisation of Electrification and Programme varies seemingly at random.

 

[Harbornite]

Shared as in operating to / from Birmingham for maintenance.

So start in service from Birmingham and head south to Plymouth or Cardiff as an XC service and spend the rest of the day with FGW and the same in reverse.

A pointless measure I'm afraid. GWR ARE getting 5 coach trains for long distance services so why bother with Voyagers?

 

[Class 170101]

It's not a criminal waste of capacity - we're intending to use 2+4, 2+5 and 2+6 HST sets (and more is likely to come, plus use of the Mark 4 stock) when they would otherwise have gone to be scrapped.

The HST sets have already been replaced on more than a like for like basis which will provide significant capacity uplift and an increase in service frequency.

These are extra carriages and extra seats over and above what was planned, yes, it's partially as a result of electrification delays, but does anybody really think the short HSTs at FGW will be replaced by the stock they're basically covering for or even that the stock they're covering for will be made available ?

The likelihood is that the short HST sets will be replaced in due course as if they were permanent capacity within each franchise.

What about the HST Mark IIIs sitting spare when the sets are reduced in length as suggested?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A pointless measure I'm afraid. GWR ARE getting 5 coach trains for long distance services so why bother with Voyagers?

Trying not to reduce the HSTs in length leaving carriages sitting spare.

 

[Clarence Yard]

What about the HST Mark IIIs sitting spare when the sets are reduced in length as suggested?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Trying not to reduce the HSTs in length leaving carriages sitting spare.

They will be returned to the owners and if not required elsewhere, scrapped.

Of the 53 GW sets, 27 will be going to Scotland, 11 kept by GW and the other 15 full sets will be up for grabs. If Cross Country want them (or the EC sets), fine - that's plenty of extra capacity but there is very little point in inflicting voyagers on GW (or any other operator) when they don't need or even want them.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could any of the spare MK3s be Chilternised?

 

[43074]

Could any of the spare MK3s be Chilternised?

Could they be? Yes. Will they be? Probably not, unless of course a home is found for them post 2020 which isn't impossible but seems unlikely at this stage.

 

[swt_passenger]

Could any of the spare MK3s be Chilternised?

Why would they Chilternise them, or any further conversions, such as for Scotrail, when it would apparently be cheaper to do the new style door conversion selected for the remaining GW sets?

 

[The Ham]

Why would they Chilternise them, or any further conversions, such as for Scotrail, when it would apparently be cheaper to do the new style door conversion selected for the remaining GW sets?

Also there will be a load of Mark 4's available, unlike the HST mark 3's already have power doors, are newer and can be used with a wider range of locos without any works.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Why would they Chilternise them, or any further conversions, such as for Scotrail, when it would apparently be cheaper to do the new style door conversion selected for the remaining GW sets?

I don't think its been confirmed one way or the other as to whether chopping the ends off would compromise the crash structure

Also there will be a load of Mark 4's available, unlike the HST mark 3's already have power doors, are newer and can be used with a wider range of locos without any works.

How many routes that MK3s are cleared for would MK4s be banned from?

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think its been confirmed one way or the other as to whether chopping the ends off would compromise the crash structure

If it's being seriously considered then the people concerned must be pretty sure they can meet whatever crashworthiness standards are applicable (which may be the ones relating to new stock not the one to which the Mk3s were built). It won't be allowed to carry passengers unless it complies, so if it turns out there is a problem they will have to modify the modification or do something else instead.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What about the HST Mark IIIs sitting spare when the sets are reduced in length as suggested?

Trying not to reduce the HSTs in length leaving carriages sitting spare.

If all you want is to keep the IC125s full-length, there is no need for GWR to take on Voyagers. Just do what I've been 'yelled at' for suggesting and use the 5-car 800s/802s on Cardiff-Penzance instead of the proposed short IC125s and keep the IC125s, full-length, on PAD-PLY/PNZ. No need to change what new trains have been ordered, just where they are used.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't think its been confirmed one way or the other as to whether chopping the ends off would compromise the crash structure

It's a given that 'chopping the ends off' is an over simplification of the real work, but Modern Railways had previously explained that there are now much less complicated solutions than Chiltern's doors in any case.

But why are you particularly worried about this? Hardly a week goes by normally without you suggesting some stock or other is either re-wired, re-engined, re-cabbed, has a pan well cut out, a transformer added, or third rail gear added.

I'd have thought a few new doors was well within the industry's capability.