West Coast Franchise speculation

[edwin_m]

The big danger for rail demand is probably if autonomous cars progress to the level where no human supervision is required. Then business travellers can just dial up their destination and open up the laptop (or whatever device has superseded them) to work on the way, and the advantage of productive time on the train is lost even if the end-to-end journey takes a bit longer. This is less of an issue if travelling into a city centre, although even there if the car can be directed to drive itself to a parking area at the edge of the city it solves the problem of lack of central parking.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think they are more likely to kill the need for local buses, manually driven taxis and station car parks (as well as possibly small branch lines) than mainline rail. A more likely model is to book an end to end journey including an automated taxi at both ends.

 

[pt_mad]

Although as discussed in another thread it'll probably be yonks until driverless cars can operate in the UK on a widespread basis without a driver.

As soon as there's a fatal collision where an innocent bystander is hit, the whole thing will be withdrawn pending an investigation.
As we make allowances for human error but not for an automated car to collide with anything or anyone without human blame.

Off topic anyway.

 

[pt_mad]

Noticed a piece in February's Modern Railways on the Voyagers. It was written that it's actually more environmentally friendly to fly from Edinburgh to Bristol on easy jet than it is to take a Voyager train. Because apparently emissions per passenger per passenger mile are worse on a Voyager than an easyJet aircraft they're so bad!

Is this not reason enough for us to want rid of then under the wires asap? I was shocked to read this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s a reason to want rid of them entirely.

 

[pt_mad]

It’s a reason to want rid of them entirely.

Surely nobody can defend the Voyagers over this? Replacements for the WCP please bidders.

And if we must keep running these gas guzzlers into the 2030s then make sure it's on a non wired route where at least they can be half justified.

 

[Chester1]

Surely nobody can defend the Voyagers over this? Replacements for the WCP please bidders.

And if we must keep running these gas guzzlers into the 2030s then make sure it's on a non wired route where at least they can be half justified.

Who provided the evidence? Its hard to believe tbh!

 

[driver_m]

But the fact the 350/2s are being upgraded as we speak to 110 capability suggests they are running on the fast lines at times. Granted probably when they allocate them to the Trent Valley service which is booked fast to Rugby or Brinklow but yes they still do allocate them on Trent Valley duties sometimes.

And the fact that the xx46 path is a fast path but the train runs at max 110mph every hour says 110 can work. That was what Project 110 at LM was all about. How many people would have said it cant work when it was first suggested?
If there are two spare paths an hour off Euston, and one must be left vacant for performance purposes, what's to stop the xx33 being at least considered for a 110mph working as far as Rugby? With the following train overtaking at Milton Keynes Central if required, as Alliance proposed. And the 350s would make better times than the 225s that they proposed due to superior acceleration.

And it's not just the xx33 path that could be looked at. They could instead consider a suitable one of the three Birmingham's that run now that may be able to run at 110mph to Rugby and still be workable path wise. This would free up the Pendolinos which currently work that diagram, and they could be used to boost capacity elsewhere. Such as using them on Scotland bound services instead of Voyagers. And using the then freed up Voyager sets to lengthen all Chester services to 10 cars.
You could then look at removing the Stafford call on the Liverpool and insert it into the Chester instead if all were double Voyagers. Which is going to free up at least another 10 Percent or more of the Liverpool train's seats for customers travelling all the way Euston to Liverpool. And Stafford customers could use the Chester instead.


For those that say only 125mph works. The xx46 works currently at 110 as far as nearly Nuneaton. And if it has been deemed new tilting trains are not worth it for 4 or 5 years only, then 110 is the only option for increased capacity. And the best accelerating and one of the most reliable EMUs the country in terms of miles per incident is the 350/2. But they would need fully refitted higher spec 2 + 2 interiors with new seats and new facilities and shop etc.

I say it as I actually drive on it, and feel I am reasonably able to say that it only works if it runs exactly to time. Which it often doesn't. Even a small 50 slack means youre guaranteed yellows Add a xx57 to the mix, delays, add a non tilt pendo, delays, run a 350/2 running at 100,, delays. I followed the DVT set many a time and even with a cockney driver on we would still catch it up. It doesn't work, and we should be looking at getting rid of 110 paths, end of. And actually maximise 125 running by using 125mph tiliting trains. Anything else is a backward step. You can't realistically mix more 110 services in the current service and expect it to work well all the time. You'd need grade separated junctions on the southern sections, to help as well at stopping conflicts. People on here need to realise that the services also conflict with trains going in the other direction, not just what's behind them .

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who provided the evidence? Its hard to believe tbh!

I'm sure I've heard something along those lines in the past, but it was based on typical loadings, which on the WCML Voyagers isn't quite as high as the XC ones.

The general reckoning I heard when comparing cars and planes (rather than trains) is that the CO2 a modern efficient plane emits when full is roughly equivalent as each passenger having driven, on their own, a small family car for the journey instead. Of course it causes a bit more harm being emitted higher in the atmosphere.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I'm sure I've heard something along those lines in the past, but it was based on typical loadings, which on the WCML Voyagers isn't quite as high as the XC ones.

The general reckoning I heard when comparing cars and planes (rather than trains) is that the CO2 a modern efficient plane emits when full is roughly equivalent as each passenger having driven, on their own, a small family car for the journey instead. Of course it causes a bit more harm being emitted higher in the atmosphere.

It depends on two things - the airline/aircraft and the occupancy of the vehicle. For example, for the many faults Ryanair and their ilk have, it's an incredibly efficient means of transport given their high load factors. The fact that it's nearly an order of magnitude faster than the car on reasonably long distances is simply a plus.

Meanwhile a typical car is far less efficient with one occupant, but with two occupants it's roughly the same as an efficient high-load aircraft. With even more occupants, it's more efficient.

 

[The Ham]

It's also worth noting that comparing an Easy Jet aircraft with a Voyager is comparing probably one of the most modern and therefore most efficient aircraft with probably one of the least efficient trains in the country with engines from about 20 years ago (when CO2 emissions were really only thought about by a relatively small number of people, at least compared with today, and weren't really something that most companies thought about. As an example mpg figures for cars weren't very well publicised, in that they were in car brochures but you had to look hard to find them, whilst now they are difficult to miss and can even be quoted on TV adverts).

In 2007 the was much made of the fact that Virgin going to run their Voyagers using bio diesel, which if I recall correctly was quite an early adoption of the fuel.

 

[pt_mad]

I think they may have been referring to harmful nitrogen oxide as well. The harmful emissions as a whole.

Anyhow, yes it is comparing a modern aircraft with a circa 20 year old engine. But that's how the environment itself will view it. A modern aircraft Vs a 20 year old diesel train. It won't discriminate. The pollution is the pullution whether it's a fair comparison or not.

Deep down it's it's hard to disagree that the continued running of these trains on fully electrified diagrams should not be permitted to continue until 2031 if the timetable and HS2 delivery requires it.

And many places in the UK still exceed legal levels of nitrogen oxide given off by diesels as broadcast by channel 4 dispatches last night in The Great Diesel Scandal.


Put them on a fully diesel route and get something new for the premier operation that is the WCML through the 2020s.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In 2007 the was much made of the fact that Virgin going to run their Voyagers using bio diesel, which if I recall correctly was quite an early adoption of the fuel.

I think that was an experiment and didn't last. Happy to be wrong, though.
222s, 180s and 185s use the same engine, of course, so it's not just Voyagers that are "dirty".
It was also only 20% bio-fuel.
Branson also wanted a tax break for using bio-fuel on trains, to cover the extra cost.

 

[dk1]

Noticed a piece in February's Modern Railways on the Voyagers. It was written that it's actually more environmentally friendly to fly from Edinburgh to Bristol on easy jet than it is to take a Voyager train. Because apparently emissions per passenger per passenger mile are worse on a Voyager than an easyJet aircraft they're so bad!

Is this not reason enough for us to want rid of then under the wires asap? I was shocked to read this.

From Edinburgh to Bristol in comparison for that journey yes but does it take into account that that is all the EasyJet flight does where as the Voyager serves thousands of possible journey opportunities en route between those two cities as it travels south?

 

[pt_mad]

From Edinburgh to Bristol in comparison for that journey yes but does it take into account that that is all the EasyJet flight does where as the Voyager serves thousands of possible journey opportunities en route between those two cities as it travels south?

I don't know but the Voyager is giving out the same rubbish wherever it's passengers are travelling to and from. The train just ain't that green. And it burns fuel where there is OLE throughout, and on routes where it shouldnt be required for the train to burn any. But we keep it going rather than biting the bullet and facing we need something different on the WCML. More difficult challenges than this have been tackled in the rail industry. Sourcing and procuring new trains to replace Voyagers on the WCML shouldn't that difficult.

I mean 170s are being replaced on other TOCs. And they are about the same age. And that's on fully diesel routes that could at least justify keeping things as they were. The WCML is supposed to be the main of the main lines at present isnt it?

 

[edwin_m]

I've just looked up the piece in Modern Railways. It's no more than a reader's letter saying:

they allegedly use more energy per passenger mile to travel from Edinburgh to Bristol than an EasyJet A319

So hardly an authoritative source.

I've also just checked our online travel portal which claims to give CO2 emissions by different mode. The rail planner gives Edinburgh to Bristol is 33kg by train versus 187kg for air and the air planner gives 135kg specifically for an EasyJet flight. I don't know the detail of how this is calculated but by the size of the margin the train would win even if it was only a quarter full (which is unlikely for a Voyager). For a diesel train or an aircraft CO2 correlates closely with energy consumption.

 

[pt_mad]

I've just looked up the piece in Modern Railways. It's no more than a reader's letter saying:

So hardly an authoritative source.

I've also just checked our online travel portal which claims to give CO2 emissions by different mode. The rail planner gives Edinburgh to Bristol is 33kg by train versus 187kg for air and the air planner gives 135kg specifically for an EasyJet flight. I don't know the detail of how this is calculated but by the size of the margin the train would win even if it was only a quarter full (which is unlikely for a Voyager). For a diesel train or an aircraft CO2 correlates closely with energy consumption.

But under the wires, shouldn't the diesel emissions be 0kg? If we had the right trains in the franchise. Which we could if the will is there.

 

[dk1]

But under the wires, shouldn't the diesel emissions be 0kg? If we had the right trains in the franchise. Which we could if the will is there.

Well obviously there was the long running Project Thor plan for Voyagers but the government ditched that on cost grounds. I'm afraid that the fleet is still rather new for total replacement but hey ho that may come somewhere in the new franchise. Until then diesels under the wires is just one of those things.

 

[The Ham]

Well obviously there was the long running Project Thor plan for Voyagers but the government ditched that on cost grounds. I'm afraid that the fleet is still rather new for total replacement but hey ho that may come somewhere in the new franchise. Until then diesels under the wires is just one of those things.

IIRC part of the problem was the need for 2 extra pantograph coaches for trains that were going to be 6 or more coaches. As such it wasn't just a case of adding one coach to the whole fleet.

Personally, I'd have kept the WC 221's as 5 coaches and moved the extra 20 (existing diesel) coaches to XC to then change 20 of their 221's to be 8 coaches long (+1 diesel +2 pantograph) and then lengthened all the 4 coach units to be 5 coach units. As that would have required fewer be coaches and would have allowed for double running of the 5 coach units when required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But under the wires, shouldn't the diesel emissions be 0kg? If we had the right trains in the franchise. Which we could if the will is there.

They'd only be 0kg if we didn't use fossil fuels to generate electricity.

 

[pt_mad]

They'd only be 0kg if we didn't use fossil fuels to generate electricity.

But the emission from diesel from that train would be 0kg if it ran on the OLE.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the emission from diesel from that train would be 0kg if it ran on the OLE.

Yes, but that is not a useful figure.

 

[pt_mad]

Yes, but that is not a useful figure.

I know I was just trying to make the point that OLE is always the way to go when it's there. Especially when it's there for the whole route. That should be a must before bi mode. Get workings that run all the way under OLE to use electricity and not diesel.

It's like running dodgems on petrol but still electrifying the grid above.

 

[mmh]

But the emission from diesel from that train would be 0kg if it ran on the OLE.

The power's being generated somewhere. You could remove all the Voyager engines and use them as static electricity generators, they'd be just as bad as if they were running underneath a train.

 

[pt_mad]

The power's being generated somewhere. You could remove all the Voyager engines and use them as static electricity generators, they'd be just as bad as if they were running underneath a train.

Yes the power is of course being generated sonewhere. But not with diesel engines and I'm presuming the power stations on the national grid dont produce as much nitrogen oxide as all the diesel trains which don't run electric. Most power generation here is from nuclear or wind.

Surely nobody can argue that diesel is preferable than using existing electrification where it exists? I haven't heard that one before?

 

[Chester1]

Has there been any official indication that the Voyagers will not be retained by either WCP or XC? This seems debate seems to be just "wibble".

 

[mmh]

Yes the power is of course being generated sonewhere. But not with diesel engines and I'm presuming the power stations on the national grid dont produce as much nitrogen oxide as all the diesel trains which don't run electric. Most power generation here is from nuclear or wind.

Surely nobody can argue that diesel is preferable than using existing electrification where it exists? I haven't heard that one before?

I don't think diesel is preferable, but it's also not a straightforward either/or. The construction of new electric trains also has an environmental impact, as does scrapping existing trains. 40%+ of electricity comes from gas power stations too.

 

[driver_m]

Whatever the lease dates are for 221s and 390s will presumably have some effect on where and how long they stay. I suppose in theory a TOC could take them for the right price and run them wherever if the price was right.

"What's that, you'd give us £x millions to run 221s on the Whitby line? Oh... Go on then!"

))

 

[pt_mad]

I don't think diesel is preferable, but it's also not a straightforward either/or. The construction of new electric trains also has an environmental impact, as does scrapping existing trains. 40%+ of electricity comes from gas power stations too.

But electric trains are being constructed for other lines. Perhaps some lines which don't need them as much as WCP does. And diesel trains are being constructed for other lines where perhaphs more chopping and changing could have occurred.
Voyagers could possibly be leased to another franchise if new trains were procured for WCP .Certainly nobody would scrap them. But get them out from full operation under the wires. Like I say 170s are being replaced wirh new trains and moved where leases are up. And they are the same age. But they'll be moved not scrapped.

Whatever the lease dates are for 221s and 390s will presumably have some effect on where and how long they stay. I suppose in theory a TOC could take them for the right price and run them wherever if the price was right.

"What's that, you'd give us £x millions to run 221s on the Whitby line? Oh... Go on then!"

))

Well I'm guessing the Voyager leases are in some doubt for either WCP or XC or both. As why arent they having their midlife overhaul like the Pendolinos are? They have been out just as long as the Pendos, longer on XC.

Also, voyagers could be put to good use on XC as far as Cambridge, if it was trimmed back from Stansted. Or XC to Cardiff or Nottingham. Or the Liverpool Norwich, Chiltern, routes into Wales . Potential work on TPE. The list goes on. They wouldn't need to be scrapped.
Besides that XC might want any spare sets from WCP to double their trains. Which is a separate subject altogether. But fact is they may do.

 

[mmh]

But get them out from full operation under the wires.

I've only been able to find VWC Voyager diagrams from 2015, so a bit out of date (although I think there's been few timetable changes since then). For 20 Voyagers, Monday - Thursday 18 were diagrammed, 1 spare and 1 maintenance. Of those 18, 5 didn't go off electrification in passenger service, 2 were coupled together all day and did nothing but Euston-Scotland, 1 unit ran singly all day and did nothing but Euston/West Mids-Scotland. All the others joined/split/went off electrification.

So you could probably stop complete-journeys-under-the-wires with a handful of extra electric units, but to argue the case for it on environmental grounds would be difficult - moving 5 units out of Britain's hundreds and hundreds of diesel units is a drop in the ocean.

I'm guessing the Voyagers Under Wires controversy on here must stem from Euston-Birmingham-Glasgow/Edinburgh being probably the longest diesel on electrified lines route? There's plenty of diesel on the ECML, perhaps more - the ECML operators have got far more diesel stock, at least.