Tory MP says bi-modal trains 'second-best'

[47802]

Well if the Tory MP is making sense, its more than can be said for your comments that's for sure.

amazingly a tory is speaking sense..BI-MODE shouldnt really be required, they are second best and the only winners in this farce are hitachi.

The joke of GWML and stopping the wires at didcot ? the question one has to ask is, why bother in the first place ?!

The wires wont be going to Oxford for the moment but they are not stopping at Didcot and will run to Cardiff as planned, and I think its unlikely that wires will not get to Oxford at some point.

Network rail & the Government should be hanging their heads in shame at treating the GWR like a second class electrification project. It Makes a mockery of everything Brunel, his contractors and Navvies acheived, what BR engineers did when upgrading to 125mph on the western routes. GWR really should lose the G now - and just be Western Railway as there is nothing great in this 2nd rate electrification project.!

Well yes Network Rail have gone vastly over budget and time and while you could argue that Network Rails management of it has been Second Rate I'm not sure you can call the actuall project Second Rate

we have a proven product in Pendolino and Voyager, on the GWR the next versions of these fleets would have perfect for the line. but No investment in the 2nd best is easier.!

Really I doubt many people would agree about the Voyager, the point is IEP will substancially reduce Diesel under the wires running, and will certainly be quieter than a Voyager on Electric and according to those who have been on IEP its quieter on Diesel as well. Yes an alternative would have been to use Pendolino with probably some diesel dragging, but Dft decided IEP was a more flexible and cost effective solution, and whether you like the Bi-mode concept or not I'm not sure you can call it a second rate solution

these IEP things that are being assembled in newton should be only using their diesels for the last bit of jobs - ie - newton abbot - paignton and branches etc, the diesel tanks should be in ideal and perfect world filled weekly. Not daily as will now be the case.

i have seen the GWR electrostar units on testing regular days from BY, and they look very sexy, its a pity they wont be used properly and their legs wont be stretched properly on the western from at least oxford and Bristol.

Bi-mode on the western is a joke and farce...its something again Brunel and gooch would have been ashamed to have been involved in if they were alive today !

The electrification was never planned to go anywhere near Newton Abbot so that was never going to happen, and the Electrostars were never planned to serve Bristol on any regular basis as far as I am aware.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't need to argue for risk assessments, they are required to deviate below the new standards. The regulations are in place. Those who want to revert to the earlier standard need to prove their case. I don't do risk assessments myself, it's not my job, so I wouldn't value a risk assessment I produce. But my personal belief is that, irrespective of the track record, the current standard is reasonable, and reverting to the old standard would require a body of supporting evidence that I suspect Network Rail do not possess.

And yet this risk has been shown, by actual experience, to actually be negligible in real world conditions.

So why has the standard been further tightened, apparently without any consideration about how much safer it functionally is?

If ORR can arbitrarily tighten regulations with no real consultation (since it appears NR or other stakeholders were not actually consulted at all) and then place the burden on everyone else to prove a negative, we have a serious issue.

What if ORR (as an organisation) wakes up tommorow and says that clearances have to be doubled again?
Is it again up to NR to prove that the ORR is being stupid?

Network Rail already accepted it. They rolled over mid-project when they had justification to disagree and push back. It's now a done deal. Move on. Whether you or I accept it is irrelevant. If electrification can't be done because it can't meet current safety standards within budget, that's too bad, but I think we both know that this little more than a distraction from the real problems with the electrification projects.

And you are living in some fantasy land where there was anything that Network Rail can do.
ORR has been given functionally unlimited authority in this area, and has abused that authority - Network rail cannot withstand the regulators command.
Once the ORR decreed that ongoing projects had to obey the new standards, that was that.

The ORR possesses titanic conflicts of interest as it is the paymaster and the safety regulation body for the railway and other transport bodies.
It has been given (or granted itself) absurd powers to legislate essentially without reference or appeal.

As a result of its almost-impossible-to-justify commands on electrification, large numbers of people will sicken and die as a result of railway air pollution, and from air pollution caused by railways being uneconomic to operate in competition with competing modes of transport.

That blood is on their hands.

 

[D365]

Much as it would be nice to think so, the increase in clearances didn't actually play a huge factor in the problems suffered...

 

[jimm]

amazingly a tory is speaking sense..BI-MODE shouldnt really be required, they are second best and the only winners in this farce are hitachi.

If the Tory in question had not lost his Cabinet job when Theresa May replaced his pal David Cameron last year, then he would have been up there alongside Mr Grayling telling us how bi-modes were the answer to everything.

The joke of GWML and stopping the wires at didcot ? the question one has to ask is, why bother in the first place ?

As noted above, they aren't stopping at Didcot - it's not exactly hard to find this out or have you missed all the publicity in the past day or two about electrification work in Wiltshire and South Gloucestershire over the past few weeks?

Network rail & the Government should be hanging their heads in shame at treating the GWR like a second class electrification project. It Makes a mockery of everything Brunel, his contractors and Navvies acheived, what BR engineers did when upgrading to 125mph on the western routes. GWR really should lose the G now - and just be Western Railway as there is nothing great in this 2nd rate electrification project.

Some of what BR engineers did - burying signal cables - has been one of the biggest causes of problems for the electrification project - but don't let that get in the way of a good rant, will you?

we have a proven product in Pendolino and Voyager, on the GWR the next versions of these fleets would have perfect for the line. but No investment in the 2nd best is easier

Proven product? Well they are both able to move themselves along railway tracks, but common consensus is that the passenger environment on both trains leaves rather a lot to be desired and the passenger capacity of Voyagers is pathetic set against their contemporary, the Class 180.

In addition, both designs are now almost 20 years old. No-one is building an 'next version' of a Voyager and Alstom has moved on to a new generation of the Pendolino in continental Europe, so a new UK version of the train would need to be designed pretty much from scratch anyway.

these IEP things that are being assembled in newton should be only using their diesels for the last bit of jobs - ie - newton abbot - paignton and branches etc, the diesel tanks should be in ideal and perfect world filled weekly. Not daily as will now be the case.

i have seen the GWR electrostar units on testing regular days from BY, and they look very sexy, its a pity they wont be used properly and their legs wont be stretched properly on the western from at least oxford and Bristol.

Bi-mode on the western is a joke and farce...its something again Brunel and gooch would have been ashamed to have been involved in if they were alive today !

You seem to be forgetting that when the bi-modes were ordered, the idea was that they would only be using the diesel engines to maintain the through services to places off the core electrified area - Oxford to Worcester/Hereford, Swindon to Gloucester/Cheltenham, Bristol to Weston-super-Mare/Taunton - but would be on electric power for substantial parts of their journeys. They still will be doing that - but no one envisaged the government deciding that wiring into Bristol looked too much like hard work, which put paid to the all-electric Class 801s, at least for the time being. There is no plan to electrify the route into Devon - which is why the Class 802s were ordered, with bigger fuel tanks.

Re Class 387s, what are you on about? They are for the commuter services between Oxfordshire, Berkshire and London and have never been intended to go anywhere near Bristol - and will operate at their full 110mph in the Thames Valley.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Much as it would be nice to think so, the increase in clearances didn't actually play a huge factor in the problems suffered...

So this cost nothing then? Plus all the inconvenience and disruption for people who use it. The article clearly states its "too low" for electrification. Its not a lightly used bridge but a major thoroughfare form one part of Cardiff to another.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/splott-road-bridge-cardiff-close-13433236

The bridge, which connects Adamsdown to Splott , is currently too low to accommodate the overhead line equipment needed for trains running on electricity.

 

[Emblematic]

And yet this risk has been shown, by actual experience, to actually be negligible in real world conditions.

So why has the standard been further tightened, apparently without any consideration about how much safer it functionally is?

If ORR can arbitrarily tighten regulations with no real consultation (since it appears NR or other stakeholders were not actually consulted at all) and then place the burden on everyone else to prove a negative, we have a serious issue.

What if ORR (as an organisation) wakes up tommorow and says that clearances have to be doubled again?
Is it again up to NR to prove that the ORR is being stupid?


And you are living in some fantasy land where there was anything that Network Rail can do.
ORR has been given functionally unlimited authority in this area, and has abused that authority - Network rail cannot withstand the regulators command.
Once the ORR decreed that ongoing projects had to obey the new standards, that was that.

The ORR possesses titanic conflicts of interest as it is the paymaster and the safety regulation body for the railway and other transport bodies.
It has been given (or granted itself) absurd powers to legislate essentially without reference or appeal.

As a result of its almost-impossible-to-justify commands on electrification, large numbers of people will sicken and die as a result of railway air pollution, and from air pollution caused by railways being uneconomic to operate in competition with competing modes of transport.

That blood is on their hands.

More misinformation and hyperbole :roll:
The ORR do not set the standards. These standards are set by the RSSB, which has many stakeholders from industry including Network Rail but not ORR - they have asked the latter to be an independent reviewer on occasion. The standards are no arbitrary, they are based on the TSI so are widely accepted. All that has ceased is the UK exemption. Nothing arbitrary, nothing to do with ORR.
You complain that ORR has conflicts of interest (I agree there) but then complain that they don't take costs into account. Well a) they do, and b) I'm really glad that there appears to be some separation of safety and financial regulation. I would prefer my safety regulator to be completely separate, but autonomy within ORR will have to do. As to complaining about ORR having authority, what do you expect? If they have no authority, there's no point - I prefer my regulators to have teeth.
Couldn't NR have done anything? Well, in fairness, they did try, there were negotiations regarding continuing the existing projects to the prior standards with a blanket dispensation. However, they took they call that it was quicker to just adopt the new standards and retrospectively apply them. That didn't kill electrification, the main changes were some heightened bridge parapets as I recall, plus a few adjustments and risk assessments. For future projects, the costs are minimal.
As to "large numbers of people will sicken and die as a result of railway air pollution" - well, what to we expect from someone who seems to think that 3rd rail has a comparable safety record to OLE? You can blame the politicians and civil servants, who for ages thought electrification would become obsolete. Then decided to electrify everything, all at once. Then decided that bimodes were better than electrification, less 'disruptive' and 'unsightly.' You can blame NR, who (going by the GOBLIN fiasco) can't even deliver smaller projects on time and budget, even when they are working on a closed railway. And yes, you can dole out blame to ORR, RSSB and the other players, but they have minor roles.

 

[Gareth Marston]

And yet this risk has been shown, by actual experience, to actually be negligible in real world conditions.

So why has the standard been further tightened, apparently without any consideration about how much safer it functionally is?

If ORR can arbitrarily tighten regulations with no real consultation (since it appears NR or other stakeholders were not actually consulted at all) and then place the burden on everyone else to prove a negative, we have a serious issue.

What if ORR (as an organisation) wakes up tommorow and says that clearances have to be doubled again?
Is it again up to NR to prove that the ORR is being stupid?


And you are living in some fantasy land where there was anything that Network Rail can do.
ORR has been given functionally unlimited authority in this area, and has abused that authority - Network rail cannot withstand the regulators command.
Once the ORR decreed that ongoing projects had to obey the new standards, that was that.

The ORR possesses titanic conflicts of interest as it is the paymaster and the safety regulation body for the railway and other transport bodies.
It has been given (or granted itself) absurd powers to legislate essentially without reference or appeal.

As a result of its almost-impossible-to-justify commands on electrification, large numbers of people will sicken and die as a result of railway air pollution, and from air pollution caused by railways being uneconomic to operate in competition with competing modes of transport.

That blood is on their hands.

Its a multi organizational failure involving Politicians, Network Rail, ORR, DfT and toxic legacy problems from the rail privatization/ Railtrack era. Culprits 1, 3 & 4 are happy for "the railway" to take the blame solely and its a disgusting denial of responsibility from Politician and Government organizations.

However can anybody cite examples of what ORR does apart from impose regulation of dubious value that increases cost?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Its a multi organizational failure involving Politicians, Network Rail, ORR, DfT and toxic legacy problems from the rail privatization/ Railtrack era. Culprits 1, 3 & 4 are happy for "the railway" to take the blame solely and its a disgusting denial of responsibility from Politician and Government organizations.

However can anybody cite examples of what ORR does apart from impose regulation of dubious value that increases cost?

Noting that three things that the ORR did not/does not do are: (a) write the Electricity at Work Regulations, (b) write UK rail standards, and (c) write European TSIs, it is ironic that one of the biggest underlying problems is that it actually has* to do ever such a lot of different things.

(*In the sense of being statutorily obliged to.)

For its website, slightly over half of the effort goes into 'safety' regulation. This covers not only Network Rail and the TOCs/FOCs but also London Underground, other metros, tramways, heritage, HS1 and (jointly) the Channel Tunnel. ORR has to follow up implementation of RAIB recommendations

Then there is 'economic' regulation. This covers not only the classic periodic review funding cycle but also track access, station access, depot access and connection agreements. There is also a significant 'licensing' component, again across many organisations.

ORR also has concurrent jurisdiction on railway 'competition' matters.

ORR also has responsibilities under 'consumer' law.

From time to time the ORR has to be able to undertake prosecutions under safety or competition legislation.

And, of course, it now also has some responsibilities for roads.

Less conspicuously it manages things like train driver licensing; the collation and publication of a vast array of railway statistics and industry financial information; and the operation of RIDDOR (safety reporting).

This range of responsibilities means that the number of people with expertise in any particular area is actually quite limited. It also makes it challenging to find senior management with the breadth of experience to provide effective oversight and direction.

 

[MonsooN]

This might be a naive question, but what's wrong with having bi mode trains?

Electric only trains are vulnerable to power failure and delay if the wires go down. If it's on bi mode, couldn't it just fire up the diesel engines and be on its way? Why not go for the belt and braces approach?

 

[HSTEd]

Noting that three things that the ORR did not/does not do are: (a) write the Electricity at Work Regulations, (b) write UK rail standards, and (c) write European TSIs, it is ironic that one of the biggest underlying problems is that it actually has* to do ever such a lot of different things.

(*In the sense of being statutorily obliged to.)

But the Electricity at Work Regulations state that the ORR is responsible for electrical safety for railway traction conductor systems and the remainder of the regulations effectively do not apply.

More misinformation and hyperbole :roll:
The ORR do not set the standards. These standards are set by the RSSB, which has many stakeholders from industry including Network Rail but not ORR - they have asked the latter to be an independent reviewer on occasion. The standards are no arbitrary, they are based on the TSI so are widely accepted. All that has ceased is the UK exemption. Nothing arbitrary, nothing to do with ORR.

So they one day decided to strike down standards of 40-70 years standing?
What evidence did they present with this.

As to "large numbers of people will sicken and die as a result of railway air pollution" - well, what to we expect from someone who seems to think that 3rd rail has a comparable safety record to OLE? You can blame the politicians and civil servants, who for ages thought electrification would become obsolete. Then decided to electrify everything, all at once. Then decided that bimodes were better than electrification, less 'disruptive' and 'unsightly.' You can blame NR, who (going by the GOBLIN fiasco) can't even deliver smaller projects on time and budget, even when they are working on a closed railway. And yes, you can dole out blame to ORR, RSSB and the other players, but they have minor roles.

When did I say that 3rd Rail has a comparable safety record to OLE?
I fully accept that 3rd Rail is much less safe than overhead lines

Just that I believe that this comparison is irrelevant since OLE is so ludicrously safe that third rail can be effectively safe as well.

 

[tbtc]

This might be a naive question, but what's wrong with having bi mode trains?

Electric only trains are vulnerable to power failure and delay if the wires go down. If it's on bi mode, couldn't it just fire up the diesel engines and be on its way? Why not go for the belt and braces approach?

Not a naïve question at all.

Things would have been much better on the ECML if we'd had bi-mode 91s, able to keep running when the wires went down.

That's why even the "electric" IET (801) will have diesel engines in some coaches to cope with electrification problems.

It also means that the units are more flexible for the future, able to be cascaded onto other lines, e.g. if HS2 means fewer nine coach trains are required from Kings Cross to Leeds/ Edinburgh then the 800s can move onto other routes (that may not be fully electrified).

Nothing wrong with "belt and braces". I'm sure if BR had run bi-mode InterCity services then some people would love them - but it's new technology on such lines so people are sceptical.

What would you like to cut, track maintenance? Tried that before, sadly. The truth is that the cost-cutting just started earlier, in the 1990s.

Despite all of the Austerity, we've seen rail staff wages increase by at least inflation, we've seen final salary pensions continue.

Despite all of the cuts to rural lines in other EU countries, we've not seen any serious attempt to close any significant bit of line in recent memory (a couple of stations like Norton Bridge have been downgraded to a useless status but that's nothing compared to the fate of the "provincial" railway in places like Ireland.

Compare the cossetted world of the railway to the cuts that the public sector has faced in recent years. Thousands of Police officers or fire fighters out of work now. There's a world outside the railway.

And here by the ultimate fan of bi-modes tries to justify the unjustifiable....

Well you have got your wish. Your beloved bi-modes have killed electrification dead. Hope you are happy. I've been told that bi-modes are now the answer to everything and god help anyone who tries to push forward any further electrification.

That's for not reading what I said and jumping to your usual conclusions

"bi-modes have killed electrification"? Nah, the railway has killed electrification.

If Network Rail were able to deliver what they promised to the budget that they promised in a timescale that they promised then we wouldn't be having these arguments.

Network Rail failed. That's why we need bi-modes to cover the gaps.

If they could deliver electrification to a reasonable budget within a reasonable timescale, electrification would be on the agenda. Unfortunately they've made such a mess of it that no politician is going to trust them to deliver large schemes any time soon.

Try to find a way of blaming that on bi-modes if you want, but the electrification ship was sinking regardless of the stock.

Nothing's killed electrification dead, and that's not the point he was making either. The DfT have, sadly but sensibly in reality, looked at the current cost overruns and decided that all that was planned/promised can't be afforded or delivered because NR can't project manage effectively.

If it was all completed what would you cut from the total government budget to make it affordable? Healthcare, education, justice, benefits, defence, other transport projects? More importantly for the government (and this isn't a party political point, it applies equally to any party in this position) what's least likely to make people vote for another party? Calling a halt for now to a horrifically over budget and badly managed electrification scheme or making cuts elsewhere, as listed above, to pay for it?

In reality it's a 'for now' decision, and may well be revisited in the future, allowing the government of whichever flavour to announce that new electrification is on its way, rather than just delayed, massively over budget electrification staggering on.

Great points!

Well, we know Crossrail 2 has an eye-watering price tag of £30bn, and electrification has the potential for massive cost overruns. Surely, the way to keep down costs is to run bi-modes through Central London.

What's good for the Northern Labour-voting goose is good for the Tory MP for Epsom gander.

If you want to do the chip-on-the-shoulder stuff about how London always gets the best of everything then at least pick a reasonable example.

There's no way you'd run diesel trains in an underground railway through any large city, there'd be no point in ripping up the already-electrified SWML branches that Crossrail2 will be serving.

I don't get your point. The politician called them second best, you called them the least worst or best compromise. You should go in to politics for saying exactly the same thing thinking it sounded better. Some people would probably vote for you. Have a think about it.

I was just surprised at the OP's idea that a compromise train like bi-mode might not be perfect in every way.

Of course bi-mode isn't perfect, but since we have thousands of miles of unelectrified railway and we need to maintain existing links - whilst being unable to electrify lines in any hurry - we need bi-mode.

But we come back to point that the Government doesn't have a bottomless pit of money and Network Rail didn't just Blow the budget it tore to shreds.

In terms of future Projects it strikes me that the Cardiff Valleys is probably a better priority than Cardiff Swansea.

Agreed

Diesel engines are generally maintained based on the nunnery of hours the engines run for

That's one of the best bits of auto-correct I've seen

amazingly a tory is speaking sense..BI-MODE shouldnt really be required, they are second best and the only winners in this farce are hitachi.

The joke of GWML and stopping the wires at didcot ? the question one has to ask is, why bother in the first place ?

Network rail & the Government should be hanging their heads in shame at treating the GWR like a second class electrification project. It Makes a mockery of everything Brunel, his contractors and Navvies acheived, what BR engineers did when upgrading to 125mph on the western routes. GWR really should lose the G now - and just be Western Railway as there is nothing great in this 2nd rate electrification project.

we have a proven product in Pendolino and Voyager, on the GWR the next versions of these fleets would have perfect for the line. but No investment in the 2nd best is easier

the bi-mode 319 makes perfect sense, they are in the second part of their lives, and these eeks out a few more years of revenue of the fleet where modified.

these IEP things that are being assembled in newton should be only using their diesels for the last bit of jobs - ie - newton abbot - paignton and branches etc, the diesel tanks should be in ideal and perfect world filled weekly. Not daily as will now be the case.

i have seen the GWR electrostar units on testing regular days from BY, and they look very sexy, its a pity they wont be used properly and their legs wont be stretched properly on the western from at least oxford and Bristol.

Bi-mode on the western is a joke and farce...its something again Brunel and gooch would have been ashamed to have been involved in if they were alive today !

Please tell us how you'd run the GWML with 390s (given the current map of electrification, the delays in electrifying more, the obvious problems that Virgin had in coupling 57s to them at Crewe that meant they had to give up on "drags")?

If we can't electrify to Oxford or Bristol then I'd probably forget about wires to Newton Abbot any time soon.

Much as it would be nice to think so, the increase in clearances didn't actually play a huge factor in the problems suffered...

Ah, but it's a nice easy scapegoat to blame for the failure of this huge project. It'll soon become received wisdom - "ah, but it was all on track until the pesky bridge clearances scuppered it".

Realistically though, there were bigger problems.

Standards don't change without warning - if you build things promptly then you don't have to worry about the goalposts moving. If you take significantly longer to deliver what you promised then you can't be too surprised to find new regulations start to kick in.

 

[Dr Hoo]

But the Electricity at Work Regulations state that the ORR is responsible for electrical safety for railway traction conductor systems.

Shock horror! A public body has to obey/uphold/enforce/apply laws and regulations that came into effect before it was founded (or was given formal responsibilities for those areas).

 

[HSTEd]

Shock horror! A public body has to obey/uphold/enforce/apply laws and regulations that came into effect before it was founded (or was given formal responsibilities for those areas).

But that means that the other contents of the Electricity of Work regulations cannot be used to enforce clearances or anything else.

Trying to use the Electricity at Work Regulations as an excuse for why the ORR is forced to do things is nonsensical circular reasoning.


Nevermind that if you actually read the EaW regulations, placement of uninsulated conductors inside typical clearances is not absolutely forbidden - after all electrolytic production plants for aluminium could pretty much not be built if it was.
This is a giant mess, and it all could have been avoided.

 

[kieron]

Are there ANY countries in the world where this sad calculation does not have to be made?

Probably. All this is is someone in a position of authority making a decision. They make these for all sorts of different reasons, especially when the person making the decision has a lot of power within the organisation.

I don't suppose a country where nothing is decided on this sort of basis (comparing the cost of doing something and the danger from not doing it) would be a pleasant place to live, though.

 

[D365]

So this cost nothing then? Plus all the inconvenience and disruption for people who use it. The article clearly states its "too low" for electrification. Its not a lightly used bridge but a major thoroughfare form one part of Cardiff to another.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/splott-road-bridge-cardiff-close-13433236

If the increased clearances had been in place from the start, there wouldn't be a problem, but the fact that designs have had to be modified halfway through the programme.

 

[EIKN]

They should cascade some Adalante or Voyagers to the Borders Railway replacing the low quality DMU.
At a stroke they'd double standards . Quicker accelleration.
Longer trains . And give the chance to run longer distance services , where is the link from the Borders line to say the Southbound ECML?.
Or Northbound For Stirling - Perth - Inverness or Dundee Aberdeen routes ?.
There must be demand .

 

[HowardGWR]

They should cascade some Adalante or Voyagers to the Borders Railway replacing the low quality DMU.
At a stroke they'd double standards . Quicker accelleration.
Longer trains . And give the chance to run longer distance services , where is the link from the Borders line to say the Southbound ECML?.
Or Northbound For Stirling - Perth - Inverness or Dundee Aberdeen routes ?.
There must be demand .

I see you are a new poster, welcome. Have you seen the Borders Railway thread? In it you will see just how little potential demand there could be. See Altnabreac's posts.

 

[EIKN]

I see you are a new poster, welcome. Have you seen the Borders Railway thread? In it you will see just how little potential demand there could be. See Altnabreac's posts.

Hi yes and with respect a 3 or 4 car Voyages is perfectly ideal for the Borders route. Think of a possibility of using them and have an early morning service direct to London.
You can't say you couldn't fill a train service like that .

How about folk in the Borders rail catchment e.g.
No may want to visit the highlands .
Who wants to do that on a Turbostar or ancient faulty DMU .

Also never say never . You can't say never as that thinking would not have seen that or any other line restorations built .

Hawick ( off topic is a must )
Onwards to Carlisle with the freight siding to Keilder plantation to take logging traffic .
Plus it including Langholm.
Perhaps that extension is about benefiting the wider borders plus a very convenient link or diversion from the WCML to Edinburgh.

 

[jimm]

Hi yes and with respect a 3 or 4 car Voyages is perfectly ideal for the Borders route.

I thought one of the complaints about use of the 158s on the Borders services was limited seating capacity at busy times of the day - have you ever travelled on a Voyager?

A pair of Class 158s, making a four-car formation, seats 270 passengers.

A four-car Voyager seats 200 people.

Ideal? Don't think so.

 

[Gareth Marston]

From Roger Fords monthly e newsletter /preview received today

On 1 November I was invited to make a written submission to the Parliamentary Welsh Affairs Committee’s investigation into the cancellation of the Cardiff-Swansea electrification. You can read my submission at: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...trification-in-south-wales/written/73604.html

Written evidence submitted by Roger Ford (CAN0016)


Cancellation of rail electrification

By Roger Ford Comp IRSE FCILT


1.0 Introduction

This brief submission focuses on the current claims by Government that electro-diesel ‘bi-mode’ trains provide an acceptable alternative to full electrification of the line between Cardiff and Swansea .

These claims are not based on a detailed technical and commercial comparison of the alternatives. To be blunt, the claim that bi-mode trains will provide passengers with the same quality of service is a face-saving attempt to justify cancellation of the onward electrification from Cardiff to Swansea. The cancellation is the result of cost escalation and delayed completion of Network Rail’s Great Western Electrification Programme (GWEP).

Government is arguing that with the introduction of the Hitachi Class 800 bi-mode trains on the Great Western Main Line passengers between Cardiff and Swansea will receive the benefits of new trains and journey time savings (of up to 15 minutes) without the need for electrification. Ironically, the journey time saving to Swansea depends on the higher performance of the new trains when they start operating under electric power following the commissioning of GWEP between London and Cardiff in December 2018.

Focus on journey time savings is effectively setting up a false comparison. In England the Transport Secretary has similarly justified the cancellation of the Midland Main Line electrification between London, Nottingham and Sheffield on the grounds that “it costs a billion pounds and saves 1 minute”. This claim ignores the many proven advantages of electric traction over diesel trains. These benefits include operating costs, environmental impact, energy efficiency , reliability and passenger comfort.

2.0 Comparison of electric power versus diesel

2.1 In general, it is important to bear in mind that in both modes the bi-mode represents a sub-optimal solution.

With up to 10 tonnes of diesel power pack and fuel under 60% of its coaches, when running as an electric train a bi-mode is an overweight Electric Multiple Unit (EMU).

In diesel mode it is underpowered when compared with a conventional Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) DMUs have an engine for each vehicle while at least one bi-mode vehicle will be dedicated to the equipment for electric operation – a transformer and pantograph . Performance is thus degraded in both modes by either excessive weight or lack of power.

2.2 Electric traction equipment is simpler, lighter and offers more power for a given weight compared with diesel equipment. As a result electric trains are lighter. This is reflected in the capital and operating costs.

The average cost per vehicle of recent EMU orders in the UK has been around £1.2 million. The recent contract for 25 Hitachi bi-mode trains for TransePennine Express has an average cost of £2.36 million per vehicle.

This difference is reflected in the leasing costs of the trains.

2.3 Diesel train fleets have a lower availability – the percentage of trains in a fleet in service. This stems from a number of factors including the increased maintenance required by diesel engines and the requirement for time out for refuelling . This means that for a given service level a larger fleet of diesel trains is required, increasing the cost

2.4 Electric train maintenance costs are typically 33% lower than a comparable diesel train

2.5 Energy costs of electric traction are typically 45% lower than diesel. This is the result of a number of factors in addition to the relative costs of electricity and diesel fuel.

Electric trains are lighter and thus require less energy for a given performance. In addition, electric trains can employ regenerative braking which switches the train’s electric motors to generators to slow the train. The electricity generated is returned to the National Grid. Typical energy saving in intercity type operations is 15-20%. A further advantage of electrification is that the railway is able to use whatever source of energy supplies the Grid.

2.6 The lower weight of electric trains results in lower track wear. In the case of the Hitachi Intercity Expres Programme trains, the vehicles in the electric units weigh 41 tonnes. In the bi-mode version, the weight of the diesel engine and fuel increases the vehicle weight to 50 tonnes.

The lower track wear reduces track maintenance costs which are reflected in the Variable Track Access Charges paid by the operator to Network Rail. This benefits fares and subsidy payments

2.7 Because more power can be installed electric trains have a higher performance than diesel trains. This is reflected in the forecast 15 minute journey time saving claimed when the GWR electrified service is introduced, although some of this will be due to changes in stopping patterns.

2.8 With shorter journey times, fewer trains are required to cover the timetable. Note the similar benefit from greater availability already mentioned.

2.9 Electric trains are significantly more reliable than diesel trains. For example, Siemens three most reliable EMUs are currently averaging around 100,000 miles per 3 minute delay. The Company’s equivalent DMUs are recording a creditable, by DMU standards , 26,000 miles per 3 minute delay.

This disparity is also reflected in the specification for the Hitachi trains in the Intercity Express Programme contract. The electric versions are required to achieve 50,000 miles per 3 minute delay, the bi-modes 25,000 miles per 3 minutes delay.

2.10 In addition to greater energy efficiency, other environmental benefits of electric trains include zero emissions at point of use, the ability to exploit low carbon sources of energy, such as solar and wind power, and quieter operation.

3 Electrification infrastructure.

This submission is concerned with the direct benefits of electrification to passengers and operators, compared with bi-mode or diesel trains. It does not discuss the issue of the rising cost of electrification which resulted in the cancellations and deferments announced in August 2017. Nor does it address the claims for battery and hydrogen fuel-cell alternatives. I could speak to these issues if the Committee requires.


Roger Ford

Industry & Technology Editor – MODERN RAILWAYS

Founding Editor – RAIL BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE

November 2017

Sub text the SoS and DafT are telling porkies with their enthusiasm for bi modes.

 

[The Ham]

From Roger Fords monthly e newsletter /preview received today

On 1 November I was invited to make a written submission to the Parliamentary Welsh Affairs Committee’s investigation into the cancellation of the Cardiff-Swansea electrification. You can read my submission at: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...trification-in-south-wales/written/73604.html


Sub text the SoS and DafT are telling porkies with their enthusiasm for bi modes.

I would suggest that one of the figures in the EMU's favor (being the cost per vehicle) could be a little simplistic in that a 100mph EMU with 20m or 23m long coaches (most of the new trains on order) is going to be cheaper to build than a 125mph train with 26m coaches even without allowing for the bimodal factor.

Having said that overall it's a fair analysis.