Future rolling stock and upgrades for the WoE line.

[Charlie Smythe]

Whereas the ride quality in a Mk5 is like riding on a cushion of air...

...Wait the ride quality is even worse than a 80X.

Quiet though.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The only important thing is that the train is comfortable for passengers.

I would suggest it being reliable is the most important!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2021 ==

The class 755’s is also a good option. Anything that doesn’t have traction motors or engines under the coaches is a good idea.

You’ve got that the wrong way round - anything which doesn’t have the traction motors/engines under the floor on this route is a BAD IDEA.... The platforms at Waterloo restrict your total length of train, the WoE peak trains (and not just Weekday peaks but leisure peaks such as Sunday afternoons) are operate by maximum length trains. To have a separate coach for the traction means one less coach for the passengers - hardly progress to make people stand!

 

[Irascible]

Should that ever happen, would SWR require a depot in Exeter? They would have a lot of stock down here and some of it may require work? There is space at Exeter (riverside yard) for a small single road shed and a few stabling sidings.

Do it at the existing depot. Pay whoever runs it at the time, not a big deal, TOCs are just bookkeeping artifice. We're talking turnaround servicing, not big exams. Well maybe if all the westcountry 158s get replaced by the same stock - that would be a remarkably good idea but a strike against 3x26m units - then they can get a bigger exam wherever.

Stadler products seem good, but in this case I'm on the "takes up platform space" bandwagon. They also have motors under the coaches anyway. This isn't really a stopper service though, more like a semi-fast which 80x manage to do on the GWR route, just as HSTs did.

 

[MarkyT]

Do it at the existing depot. Pay whoever runs it at the time, not a big deal, TOCs are just bookkeeping artifice. We're talking turnaround servicing, not big exams. Well maybe if all the westcountry 158s get replaced by the same stock - that would be a remarkably good idea - then they can get a bigger exam wherever.

And remember that SWR and GWR are under the common management of FirstGroup, although with junior partner MTR Corporation also in the mix in the case of SWR. And there has been a healthy exchange of senior personnel back and forth between the two companies recently. And, as you imply, they all work for the DfT in the end anyway and by proxy (theoretically) the citizens, taxpayers, and rail traveller of the west country and this great nation of ours!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Whereas the ride quality in a Mk5 is like riding on a cushion of air...

...Wait the ride quality is even worse than a 80X.

The ride quality in a Mark 5 is abysmal, but honestly much as I like the 159s they I like I’m in an electric toothbrush when I travel them they vibrate so much, and I’m not sure anything can be as bad as that. And they make a droning sound which becomes quite irritating after a while. No underfloor engines sounds rather desirable.

 

[Irascible]

And remember that SWR and GWR are under the common management of FirstGroup, although with junior partner MTR Corporation also in the mix in the case of SWR. And there has been a healthy exchange of senior personnel back and forth between the two companies recently. And, as you imply, they all work for the DfT in the end anyway and by proxy (theoretically) the citizens, taxpayers, and rail traveller of the west country and this great nation of ours!

Well, they may not always be under the same nominal management, but they're all under the DfT in the end yeah and if we're moving to concessions instead of full TOCs perhaps the servicing will get split away anyway. If you really really had to build another depot at Exeter ( for, um... er... servicing the Weymouth-Okehampton-Tavistock-Totnes-Salisbury route? ) I notice Exmouth Jct hasn't been built on all that much yet...

 

[pompeyfan]

Why would SWR need to start servicing at Exeter? All the diagrams are on two day turnaround through Salisbury depot.

providing the new stock could get similar MPG and could hold the same amount of fuel that could continue.

if trains are going to start jollying into west Devon you just buy more units.

 

[21C101]

There is no money thanks to Covid and any replacement stock on the West of England line will need to be joinable and dividable into different portions.

There are also a lot of class 222 Meridians looking for a new home in a couple of years.....

 

[JonathanH]

There are also a lot of class 222 Meridians looking for a new home in a couple of years.

Many threads have reached the conclusion that the 222s are totally inappropriate for the West of England line. The reasons have already been expressed in this thread with regard to 80x - ie the line doesn't need 125mph stock and they don't have enough capacity relative to their length.

 

[PTR 444]

Surely the best thing to do is wait until the 159s are life expired (2033?) and order new multi-mode stock then. I can’t see the entire WofE west of Salisbury being wired before the 2040 diesel ban so my guess would be a dual voltage battery EMU similar to the Stadler FLIRT.

 

[Irascible]

Why would SWR need to start servicing at Exeter? All the diagrams are on two day turnaround through Salisbury depot.

providing the new stock could get similar MPG and could hold the same amount of fuel that could continue.

if trains are going to start jollying into west Devon you just buy more units.

It was an option from an illustrative example about how splitting formations is actually useful on this route.

Surely the best thing to do is wait until the 159s are life expired (2033?) and order new multi-mode stock then. I can’t see the entire WofE west of Salisbury being wired before the 2040 diesel ban so my guess would be a dual voltage battery EMU similar to the Stadler FLIRT.

They'll last to the end of the decade at least, probsbly, they're well cared for ( or at least have been ). The Stadler solution wastes precious platform length, especially if you end up combining three units & not sure if batteries are going to manage all of a quite hilly & twisty route ( in both directions ) - maybe with a few km of OHLE here & there on the way though.

 

[21C101]

Why would SWR need to start servicing at Exeter? All the diagrams are on two day turnaround through Salisbury depot.

providing the new stock could get similar MPG and could hold the same amount of fuel that could continue.

if trains are going to start jollying into west Devon you just buy more units.

They could do a two hourly Okehampton service with existing stock by extending Waterloo trains westward. Any more would indeed need new stock, which is why all the Waterloo to Plymouth/Paignton services got caped when it went hourly west of Salisbury.

See comment about Meridiens above.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2021 ==

Surely the best thing to do is wait until the 159s are life expired (2033?) and order new multi-mode stock then. I can’t see the entire WofE west of Salisbury being wired before the 2040 diesel ban so my guess would be a dual voltage battery EMU similar to the Stadler FLIRT.

I shouldn't think it would be difficult to modify Meridiens to pick up from third rail.

 

[PTR 444]

They'll last to the end of the decade at least, probsbly, they're well cared for ( or at least have been ). The Stadler solution wastes precious platform length, especially if you end up combining three units & not sure if batteries are going to manage all of a quite hilly & twisty route ( in both directions ) - maybe with a few km of OHLE here & there on the way though.

I can see two ways around the battery issue. Either extend the OHLE from Salisbury to Yeovil Junction, or wire Castle Cary to Exeter via Pen Mill at the same time as Reading-Taunton to double up as a diversionary route for IETs. That way, any WofE stock would only need to run on battery power between Salisbury and YVJ or YVJ and Exeter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2021 ==

I shouldn't think it would be difficult to modify Meridiens to pick up from third rail.

Not sure if they would be suitable for all current 159 services though. I would expect any new WofE stock would also be needed to cover Romsey Rounders and the Fawley branch if that remains unelectrified.

 

[21C101]

I can see two ways round the battery issue. Either extend the OHLE from Salisbury to Yeovil Junction, or wire Castle Cary to Exeter via Pen Mill at the same time as Reading-Taunton to double up as a diversionary route for IETs. That way, any WofE stock would only need to run on battery power between Salisbury and YVJ or YVJ and Exeter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2021 ==


Not sure if they would be suitable for all current 159 services though. I would expect any new WofE stock would also be needed to cover Romsey Rounders and the Fawley branch if that remains unelectrified.

I would imagine the Meridiens would principally be used for services to Exeter (and beyond) and Bristol, with the 159s remaining on peak hour Waterloo - Salisbury services and things like Romsey and Fawley, possibly also Westbury to Weymouth to replace sprinters.

While the 159s are getting long in the tooth for top link intercity services, they are far from life expired.

 

[Parallel]

I can’t see Class 222s operating Waterloo / Exeter. They will offer reduced capacity compared to 158s/159s, they have no gangway between units for the short platforms on the route, and as each unit is formed of more carriages, it will be operationally more challenging to split and join coaches at various locations. I’d say there is more chance of XC taking them on than SWR.

Although I think when the time comes in 10 years or so, they should go for a bi-mode if it is possible to use the rail east of Basingstoke. My personal preference would be for a new build, something similar to the 159s but the reality is probably going to be something more like a 195 model.

If (regular, I.e hourly) Okehampton trains ever make it to Axminster, that gives SWR/their successor the option to drop the calls at Feniton and Whimple.

To be honest, I would argue the line needs sorting out (I.e redoubling) before any major investment is put into stock.

I think Exeter needs its suburban service improving too, so should look at where Devon metro trains could realistically terminate and turn around. A logical thing would be to bring the second platform at Polsloe Bridge back into use, either as a bay or a bi-directional platform, and maybe adding facilities to turn around trains at Pinhoe as others have said, or at Cranbrook.

Obviously, all these improvements might not be needed, depending how long the pandemic goes on for...

 

[Charlie Smythe]

As for wasting space at Waterloo, having 6 cabs like you do on a 3+3+2+2 159 formation wastes tonnes of space, and I don’t think that having two 7 metre power cars and then 2 cans would make all that much diffrance.

As for batteries, the easiest thing to do is not have them as the technology isn’t there. 6 cars Stadler 755 with 2570hp each and third rail equipment built in for coming out of London and the basic equipment for OHLE for if that ever comes around.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2021 ==

As for Meridians, I feel like that would be another 185 issue.

The 159’s are averagely heavy but nothing to much, however the Merdians are ovewirjt and have the engines to support that. The fuel bill would be huge thanks to those overkill 750hp engines. The 159’s idle a lot and that will use a lot of fuel in the meridians. Do they turn of the engines at Exeter when they’re in new yard for half an hour or so?

 

[Irascible]

As for wasting space at Waterloo, having 6 cabs like you do on a 3+3+2+2 159 formation wastes tonnes of space, and I don’t think that having two 7 metre power cars and then 2 cans would make all that much diffrance.

As for batteries, the easiest thing to do is not have them as the technology isn’t there. 6 cars Stadler 755 with 2570hp each and third rail equipment built in for coming out of London and the basic equipment for OHLE for if that ever comes around.

The cabs on a 158 take less room than the other end. If they were all trailers you'd have more toilets rather than more seats. 3x7m Stadler powercars take up an entire coach, that is a huge difference.

There'll be no new stock on this line for years still - there's no need - so today's battery tech is irrelevant. How do you double up 6 car 755s and fit them into Waterloo? you can't use stock 755s anyway, you at least need gangwayed units & the door arrangement is not good for the east end.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

The cabs on a 158 take less room than the other end. If they were all trailers you'd have more toilets rather than more seats. 3x7m Stadler powercars take up an entire coach, that is a huge difference.

There'll be no new stock on this line for years still - there's no need - so today's battery tech is irrelevant. How do you double up 6 car 755s and fit them into Waterloo? you can't use stock 755s anyway, you at least need gangwayed units & the door arrangement is not good for the east end.

I am suggesting 2 x 6 car units, not 3 x 3 car units out of Waterloo, so you would have only 14m lost across the train instead of have 6 cab with a 3+3+2+2 formation like the 159's operate in.

As for new stock, I wouldn't be so sure. I, as well as the most recent CMPS, is expecting at least a tender for new stock to be put out around 2023 when the current franchise contract comes up for renewal and FirstGroup lose it. The gangway issue is a simple one, just get Stadler to add gangway ends. There is no logical reason why it couldn't be done.

When it comes to doors, I don't think that the 755's have that much of a disadvantage over the 159's as at least there is no vestibule for everyone try to cram themselves into after wating for the vestibule door to open. On and off in a 755 is a simple thing, where as in the 159's it's a slow process.

 

[SJDCornwall]

It all depends on the future shape of the WoE mainline. I would like to to see total route modernisation with double track throughout from Salisbury to Exeter and electrification at 25kv AC from Exeter to the existing DC electrification. If we're serious about decarbonising transport, then electrification of secondary mainlines will have to be a thing in the late 2020s - early 2030s.

On this basis, stock replacement would have to fit around this - it's worth extending the 159s and then replacing them with dual-voltage units when the electrification is complete. Something like the Anglia FLIRTs could do well, or more 80x IETs, but realistically it's at least 10-15 years away.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2021 ==


If LHCS was the way forward why is everything bar TPE's Mk 5s a MU? And even TPE's Mk 5s aren't classic LHCS in the sense that they run in fixed sets with a locomotive at one end - I can't see that they're going to be adding an dropping extra carriages to meet demand from a pile of spares in a carriage siding somewhere.

Passenger comfort is of course important, but safety and affordability generally get a look in, too. There's no reason why DfT couldn't decide to replace every MU in the country with a massive Mk 5 build that would be the largest carriage order since the Mk 1s in the 1950s and 1960s.... except that it's a terrible idea because there are much cheaper ways of providing the same service, and there isn't an unlimited amount of public funding to pay for all of this.

I feel that the 3rd rail should be extended to Salisbury along with the line to Southampton and also the Chandlers ford line. This way bi modes can start up at Salisbury whilst all local trains can be EMU. That would only leave the Cardiff Pompeys to be dealt with on a separate scheme. I wholly agree with you on total redoubling to Exeter and electrification using 25kv OHLE, a new bimode can be built with 3rd rail pick up but also a pantograph well for the future.

 

[Domh245]

I am suggesting 2 x 6 car units, not 3 x 3 car units out of Waterloo, so you would have only 14m lost across the train instead of have 6 cab with a 3+3+2+2 formation like the 159's operate in.

Add another 12m to that - each Stadler Cab is about 6m from coupler face to passenger compartment wall - some of that is the particularly pointy cab fronts but about half of it is the traction electronics, which are also installed above the floor. By comparison a 345 is 4m coupler face to cab wall, but Bombardier have managed to reduce this even more on the latter Aventras (701 & 730). Hitachi's 385 are about 3m wall for the same dimension

The gangway issue is a simple one, just get Stadler to add gangway ends. There is no logical reason why it couldn't be done.

"And lo, the lord said - just ring up dellner and weld it on"

Stadler have never built front-gangwayed stock, so I can't imagine that this would be particularly successful. They would have to develop a completely new cab ($$$), and then you have to hope they don't do a Hitachi and create something that gets officially blacklisted by ASLEF requiring mod upon mod to make a working train.

When it comes to doors, I don't think that the 755's have that much of a disadvantage over the 159's as at least there is no vestibule for everyone try to cram themselves into after wating for the vestibule door to open. On and off in a 755 is a simple thing, where as in the 159's it's a slow process.

4 doors in a 80m train is going to be a big disadvantage compared to a 159. That's a lot fewer doors to funnel people through, and the vestibule point tends to be rather moot when you get to the London end of the route - people are already crammed in there at the key times! Nothing to stop you asking Stadler to put more doors in of course (TfW have), but it does come at the expense of seating and in a rather compromised pattern

 

[Ashley Hill]

I feel that the 3rd rail should be extended to Salisbury along with the line to Southampton and also the Chandlers ford line. This way bi modes can start up at Salisbury whilst all local trains can be EMU.

I mentioned something similar on another thread but the OHLE fanatics shot me dead. Apparently 3rd rail is old hat and dangerous.

 

[JonathanH]

That would only leave the Cardiff Pompeys to be dealt with on a separate scheme.

Simple - chop it at Salisbury - would remove GWR running into SWR territory.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Add another 12m to that - each Stadler Cab is about 6m from coupler face to passenger compartment wall - some of that is the particularly pointy cab fronts but about half of it is the traction electronics, which are also installed above the floor. By comparison a 345 is 4m coupler face to cab wall, but Bombardier have managed to reduce this even more on the latter Aventras (701 & 730). Hitachi's 385 are about 3m wall for the same dimension



"And lo, the lord said - just ring up dellner and weld it on"

Stadler have never built front-gangwayed stock, so I can't imagine that this would be particularly successful. They would have to develop a completely new cab ($$$), and then you have to hope they don't do a Hitachi and create something that gets officially blacklisted by ASLEF requiring mod upon mod to make a working train.



4 doors in a 80m train is going to be a big disadvantage compared to a 159. That's a lot fewer doors to funnel people through, and the vestibule point tends to be rather moot when you get to the London end of the route - people are already crammed in there at the key times! Nothing to stop you asking Stadler to put more doors in of course (TfW have), but it does come at the expense of seating and in a rather compromised pattern

I am not saying that it has to be Stadler 755's, but rather something with engines that aren't under the floor. A HST type thing is of course ideal for that, but that won't split so other than LHCS units with a powercar is the only option.

I just hate the drone on the 159's.

 

[clagmonster]

The 159s are far from life expired and there is very little money in the kitty. Thus I can't see any replacement stock coming for a good while yet.

Even so it won't be at the top of the list of schemes, I would expect Worting Junction - Exeter to be electrified at some stage. It could well be the electrification scheme that sees the 159s off, although I can see them being ancient by then. I expect any new build EMU at that point to be of a variety not yet conceived.

Incidentally, I do wonder if, subject to the safety concerns being overcome, there is a case for extending the third rail to Salisbury then OHLE from there to Exeter in order to provide a third rail electrified diversionary route from Basingstoke to Southampton via Laverstock.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Even so it won't be at the top of the list of schemes, I would expect Worting Junction - Exeter to be electrified at some stage. It could well be the electrification scheme that sees the 159s off, although I can see them being ancient by then. I expect any new build EMU at that point to be of a variety not yet conceived.

NR are reluctant to spend a few millions on a passing loop to increase capacity, let alone spend a few hundred million on electrification.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2021 ==

For anyone who hasn't seeing it and is interested, here is the official 2020 CMPS from Network Rail: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...udy-Continuous-Modular-Strategic-Planning.pdf

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2021 ==

Here is key extract from the 2020 CMPS for the WoE line talking about the track and signal issues in the Exeter. Platforms 1 and 3 are clearly an issue.

The layout at Exeter St. David’s station is a major issue with a total of six platforms, of which only two are accessible from London Waterloo, though there are aspirations for new crossovers to give greater flexibility there. At present all services to/ from the West of England Line terminate or start at Exeter St. David’s, either in platforms 1 or 3. The Great Western Railway services between Exmouth and Paignton, and between Barnstaple and St James’ Park, also use Platforms 1 and 3; this involves reversal of direction in the case of the Exmouth to Paignton services. These operations have a major impact on the capacity of Exeter St. David’s as well as the routes to/ from Exeter Central. No trains can depart Exeter Central towards Exeter St. David’s until the platform they are running into is cleared of all trains. The Exmouth Junction signal box controls all trains between Exeter Central and Cranbrook/ Exmouth and fringes onto Exeter and Basingstoke Panels to allow access into its control area. Since the box was re-controlled by British Rail, an electronic panel has been in place and has seen a number of additions, such as three new stations, an increased frequency of services and new fringe arrangements. This means that any changes on this part of the railway will have to consider the re-control of the area controlled by Exmouth Junction. The need for more services whether to/ from Honiton or 24 Topsham or Exeter Central will require a review of signal spacing, track layout and operational requirements to inform future renewal plans. This is currently being assessed through work looking at Exmouth Junction.

Interesting that they're thinking of re connecting platform 4 to Exeter Bank as it was in the old days as that would help to ease congestion. I wonder what track alterations they have planned for Central.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Simple - chop it at Salisbury - would remove GWR running into SWR territory.

There would be very little appetite to chop off Southampton to Bristol for the sake of operational convenience!

 

[Irascible]

I mentioned something similar on another thread but the OHLE fanatics shot me dead. Apparently 3rd rail is old hat and dangerous.

Well, let's watch how battery tech develops. I'm a little more cautious about it than some ( much the same with cars ) but if we *can* install reliable battery packs then having gaps in any power delivery isn't a problem ( ie, you can just wire a few km at a time to get some charge in the train rather than have to wire/rail up literally everywhere ). It does sound amazingly flexible, which is why I have a fair number of doubts and there's always alt-fuel diesels if there's really no alternative.

New level crossings are also verboten - we have to work with the rules, unfortunately, despite how harsh on reopenings that one is :/

Was not aware you couldn't hold a train on the bank ( I hadn't actually thought about it honestly ). Time to look up the rules about signal placement on hills I think.

The answer to noisy underfloor engines ( I don't mind the 159s at all tbh ) is simply to insulate the cabin better. That means using a builder who builds quality stock...

 

[Charlie Smythe]

That means using a builder who builds quality stock...

That could be an issue then...

Was not aware you couldn't hold a train on the bank

While it's not a massive problem, it does mean that you have to wait for the train ahead to climb the bank and then leave the station which takes a few minutes. It's not a big issue, but it can slow things down a little bit. If the stock was capable of restarting on the bank in all whether then the rule might be changed, but I doubt it as that bank is seriously steep.

 

[MarkyT]

New level crossings are also verboten - we have to work with the rules, unfortunately, despite how harsh on reopenings that one is :/

Not absolutely verboten but you have to make a seriously good case to overcome the presumption against.

Was not aware you couldn't hold a train on the bank ( I hadn't actually thought about it honestly ). Time to look up the rules about signal placement on hills I think.

Not a general rule but a site specific restriction that's hardwired into the signalling based on risk assessment and local experience.

That could be an issue then...

While it's not a massive problem, it does mean that you have to wait for the train ahead to climb the bank and then leave the station which takes a few minutes. It's not a big issue, but it can slow things down a little bit. If the stock was capable of restarting on the bank in all whether then the rule might be changed, but I doubt it as that bank is seriously steep.

There's an issue in both directions. Coming down the hill for safety you need a clear route set from St Davids down home into either platform #3 or #1 before the the down platform starting signal at Central will clear. Going up the hill is a performance issue, based on what loco hauled trains could achieve ; class 50s and 33s that were still about on passenger & freight in the early/mid 1980s when the current signalling was designed. I doubt any of the modern DMUs would have a problem with a standing start on the gradient today. As I say in both directions it's hard wired into the signalling so a signaller can't make a judgement call based on the traction, although there is a cheat going up hill using the shunt class position lights that are available, strictly speaking only for movements subsequently setting back into the station again.

 

[Irascible]

Edit: was post-sniped, this was in response to 50007Hoover's quote -

The bit you quoted was coming down the bank - that might have something to do with runaway protection. But yes, I think there's no need to be concerned with holding on the way up the bank with modern stock; if they can handle restarting halfway up Dainton like I've experienced they can manage that hill.