Latest on IEP/GWML

[Bald Rick]

( Wasn't the Trent Valley section of the WCML straightened out somewhat as well? )

No. With tilting trains it didn't need straightening. The exception being Rugby.

 

[Zoe]

if an extra track was provided the fast and slow lines are on opposite sides at the Rugby and Nuneaton ends of the current single line - so that would take another flyover to sort out to gain advantage of the fourth line, or failing that some more remodelling at Rugby station...

A down slow line already exists from Rugby to Brinklow, not quite sure why they made the line to the left of the formation the fast though as it make things complicated as you say if they want to extend the fourth track to Nuneaton.

 

[Solaris]

Will this rumour impact IEP decision....

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/...-upgrade/article-3234144-detail/article.html

 

[swt_passenger]

A down slow line already exists from Rugby to Brinklow, not quite sure why they made the line to the left of the formation the fast though as it make things complicated as you say if they want to extend the fourth track to Nuneaton.

I guess it's because of the way the original infrastructure happened to be laid out - and they made minimal changes. The down Northampton line splits (left and right of the down fast) on the flyover at the London end of Rugby. The RH connection off the flyover provides for trains from Northampton heading towards the Trent Valley to run through platform 2, the down side of the main island. This platform line is also a loop off the down fast through line. The stoppers and freights from Northampton heading towards Coventry take the other leg off the flyover through the new platform 1, which is on the left of the down fast, this platform also provides a loop off the fast line.

So through the station and towards the high speed junction north of Rugby, you effectively have three tracks, laid out slow/fast/slow, with non stopping high speed services then being able to take either Coventry or Nuneaton routes without conflict.

Needless to say, the up side layout is completely different and the opposite issue doesn't arise...

 

[anthony263]

Will this rumour impact IEP decision....

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/...-upgrade/article-3234144-detail/article.html

Even if the wires only go as far as cardiff it is a start (could be worse)

 

[WatcherZero]

I believe it will be worse announcing electrification only as far as Bristol. If they are introducing Bi-mode trains anyway they have no incentive to stretch the electrification.

 

[LexyBoy]

A few disjointed thoughts:-

1) Bi-mode trains will mean that trains can continue to run when the wires are down, thus savings can be made on the OHLE - ECML redux!

2) Personally I'm very disappointed that we'll be having under-floor DMUs. IMO they are simply unsuited for intercity routes, a lesson which should have been learned from the Voyagers. Acceleration shouldn't need be a key factor on long distance routes and only contributes to higher fuel costs (and passenger discomfort).

3) I guess that the IEP will be used for Bristol-London too, a route which would (if the electrification were to go ahead) entirely under the wires, whilst carrying round tonnes of diesel engines... :roll:

4) I really, really hope that it won't be 5-carriage units. 2x5 would only give about the same capacity as an HST (and would it even fit at Paddington?) on a line which is massively overcrowded at peak times.

 

[Zoe]

A few disjointed thoughts:-
4) I really, really hope that it won't be 5-carriage units. 2x5 would only give about the same capacity as an HST (and would it even fit at Paddington?) on a line which is massively overcrowded at peak times.

Remember these are to be 26 m coaches though. I expect quite a bit more capacity than a 221.

 

[tbtc]

4)2x5 would only give about the same capacity as an HST (and would it even fit at Paddington?)

Didn't FGW run 2x5 180s into Paddington, once upon a time?

 

[MCR247]

Yes, and FGW have 2+8 HSTs.....

 

[LexyBoy]

Yes, and FGW have 2+8 HSTs.....

Forgot about those two noisy things!

Remember these are to be 26 m coaches though. I expect quite a bit more capacity than a 221.

But quite a bit less than a 10-coach version though - and I guess they will be more or less permanently coupled anyway (if they are diagrammed as individual units there could be a lot of short-formed services ).

2 x 5 could make sense on some runs - Paddington to Oxford with half going on to Worcester, or Paddington to Swindon with half going to Cheltenham and half going to... somewhere else - but for the 'core' it's a pity to lose that capacity.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Speculation in South Wales press is that Cameron will announce electrification to Cardiff at Welsh Tory Conference in next couple of weeks.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Would the platforms at Paddington, Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff Central, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea be long enough to take an INTERCITY 225? Only Paddington would need to fit the whole train, as at the through stations and Swansea it wouldn't matter if the 91 didn't fit (it would need to at Padington, as it would need to be at that end of the train to allow loco swaps at Swansea). Also would Carmarthen be able to take the whole train but with a 47 or 57 instead of the 91, and would you be able to take such a train down to Pembroke Dock?

Also would the Bristol Temple Meads via Bath route (and the Oxford route if INTERCITYs go there and not just networker turbos) be able to use 225s?

 

[MCR247]

Don't think so, only a few platforms can take 11 coaches IIRC

 

[Zoe]

You could remove a coach from the formation though.

 

[Solaris]

I believe it will be worse announcing electrification only as far as Bristol. If they are introducing Bi-mode trains anyway they have no incentive to stretch the electrification.

i

I think we will see the following....

- DfT to announce electrification to Cardiff in March.
- Sometime later (post WAG elections in May) rail funding/powers will be devolved to Cardiff/WAG who will have no choice politically but to extend to Swansea
- Given this commitment it makes sense to maxmise the economies of scale and electrify the valley lines at the same time.
- I suspect by 2020 we may also see a commitment for MML wires as well

All to be complete by 2020.

We will also see
- dual mode IEPs to cover all FGW intercity network (Plymouth, Worcester, Gloucester, etc)
- and some off the shelf electric only configurations (eg Pendolino) for Paddington-Bristol-Cardiff-Swansea

 

[anthony263]

Swansea, Port Talbot Parkway, Newport etc could take up to 9 or 10 carriages, Neath is a maybe, Bridgend you cannot extend the platforms due to the Maesteg Branch at 1 end and the Vale of glamorgan route at the other

 

[WatcherZero]

i

I think we will see the following....

- DfT to announce electrification to Cardiff in March.
- Sometime later (post WAG elections in May) rail funding/powers will be devolved to Cardiff/WAG who will have no choice politically but to extend to Swansea
- Given this commitment it makes sense to maxmise the economies of scale and electrify the valley lines at the same time.
- I suspect by 2020 we may also see a commitment for MML wires as well

All to be complete by 2020.

We will also see
- dual mode IEPs to cover all FGW intercity network (Plymouth, Worcester, Gloucester, etc)
- and some off the shelf electric only configurations (eg Pendolino) for Paddington-Bristol-Cardiff-Swansea

Can I have what your smoking?

 

[anthony263]

I know the WAG have said that they dont have the money at present to fund electrification to swansea but the wires were not really expected to reach swansea til 2017 anyway and the economy should have picked up a bit by then anyway so they may have the money available to electrify that bit to Swansea and the Cardiff valley lines

 

[tbtc]

i

I think we will see the following....

- DfT to announce electrification to Cardiff in March.
- Sometime later (post WAG elections in May) rail funding/powers will be devolved to Cardiff/WAG who will have no choice politically but to extend to Swansea
- Given this commitment it makes sense to maxmise the economies of scale and electrify the valley lines at the same time.

All to be complete by 2020

Can you imagine the hysteria in north Wales if all this money is spent in the south?

 

[Solaris]

Can I have what your smoking?

Absolutley.....

 

[Rhydgaled]

Can you imagine the hysteria in north Wales if all this money is spent in the south?

I know the WAG have said that they dont have the money at present to fund electrification to swansea but the wires were not really expected to reach swansea til 2017 anyway and the economy should have picked up a bit by then anyway so they may have the money available to electrify that bit to Swansea and the Cardiff valley lines

To the above two points, WAG don't get a rail infrastructure budget allocation. However, unless it has been cut recently (no idea how much their transport budget has been hit, or what has been cut to cover the reduction) WAG do have money they currently plan to spend in the south anyway, £600,000,000 for dualing the Heads Of The Valleys Road by 2020.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Converting the ValleyLines routes that run along the GWML (Maesteg, Ebbw Vale, Cheltenham Spa and Swanline services) to electric (3-car class 377 Electrostar) operation would cost less slightly than that. The figure would be about £526,690,000 including:

• Electrification of Swansea to Cheltenham Spa
• Electrification of Ebbw Vale branch
• Electrification of Maesteg branch
• 15 3-car 377s, 3 spares plus enough for the following hourly all stations services:
  • Swansea - Cheltenham Spa (Swanline)
  • Maesteg - Ebbw Vale Parkway
  • Ebbw Vale Parkway - Newport (if the journey time is over 50mins this will need an extra unit (one less spare), which would make a half-hourly service)

The above figures do not include switching the INTERCITY services from London to electric, since that is Westminister's responsibility. Since Westminster don't give WAG a rail infrastrcture budget I think they should also foot the bill for the Swansea - Severn Tunnel Junction electricfication, saving the WAG over £201,810,000 (cost of wiring Newport - Swansea) from the above £526,690,000. WAG paying for the listed Valleys routes to go electric would mean the only diesel passenger trains between Swansea and Cardiff would be 1 train per hour from Manchester to west Wales and (hopefully) a new 2 hourly express to Fishguard.

I think that £600m is spread out between about 2014 and 2020, so some of the lines above would not be fully wired until 2020 but that's not going to be that far behind the main GWML. Wiring to Cheltenham also does one half of the diversionary route, round the Severn Tunnel, the DFT could then pick up the bat and fund the other half of the diversionary route. Also, couldn't they slow the programe down slightly once electrification has reached Bristol (freeing up a load of spare IC125s for spares to keep the Swansea services going) to save money, like they did with Thaemslink and/or Crossrail?

Bi-mode must not be allowed to happen, I can't think of one advantage of electrification that is not negated or severly reduced by going down the bi-mode route. The enviromental benifits are the ones I'm must concerned about, and they are among those being chucked in the bin by bi-mode.

Swansea, Port Talbot Parkway, Newport etc could take up to 9 or 10 carriages, Neath is a maybe, Bridgend you cannot extend the platforms due to the Maesteg Branch at 1 end and the Vale of glamorgan route at the other

So is that a no to IC225s, or could you fit the DVT and 9 cars in without extension (or just tell passengers for Bridgend not to sit in the TSOE)? As I said, you only need the 91 in the platform at PAD, it could be sticking out of the east end of the station everywhere else. Another idea might be to reduce some 225 sets to 7 or 8 car for Wales services and lengthen the Bristol trains if that would be helpful and work out. What about Pembroke Dock, mrk4s are no bigger than mrk3s are they?

 

[ainsworth74]

So is that a no to IC225s ... Another idea might be to reduce some 225 sets to 7 or 8 car for Wales services and lengthen the Bristol trains if that would be helpful and work out. What about Pembroke Dock, mrk4s are no bigger than mrk3s are they?

Well you could certainly shorten the IC225 rakes if you wanted, the only requirement for the formation is that there is a DVT at one end and a TSOE at the other, otherwise anything goes.

But one question is where are the 225s coming from? Because 225s are going to be the dominant traction on the ECML until I would have thought at least the mid 2020s and possibly a few years later than that as well depending on what happens with IEP.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes Wales has devolved power to improve rail services but the infrastructure budget hasnt been devolved unlike Scotland (who therefore have to pay for any Scottish High Speed from their own budgets not UK budgets). In a way its quite similar to a PTE's level of control being able to sponsor feasability studies and on the back of the findings ask that new projects be considered for funding by Dft/Network Rail rather than actually ordering projects.

 

[anthony263]

I think the problem with the pembroke dock line is that there are some tight curves and you have the problems with not just the width of stock but the lentgh. Narbeth stations has 1 very tight curve to be honest i dont know how the Class 158's & class 175's manage it.

 

[tbtc]

where are the 225s coming from? Because 225s are going to be the dominant traction on the ECML until I would have thought at least the mid 2020s and possibly a few years later than that as well depending on what happens with IEP.

That's what I was wondering; where are these "spare" 225s?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Well you could certainly shorten the IC225 rakes if you wanted, the only requirement for the formation is that there is a DVT at one end and a TSOE at the other, otherwise anything goes.

Would 91 + 10x mrk4 + DVT on the Bristol route and 91 + 8x mrk4 + DVT on the Swansea route work though?

But one question is where are the 225s coming from? Because 225s are going to be the dominant traction on the ECML until I would have thought at least the mid 2020s and possibly a few years later than that as well depending on what happens with IEP.

That's what I was wondering; where are these "spare" 225s?

The 225s, or some of them, would be cascaded from the ECML by new stock. There are 3 reasons why I'm suggesting the ECML gets the new stock rather than GWML.

1. ECML needs greater capacity than GWML, just look at the IC125s, 2+8 on GWML, 2+9 on ECML. Assuming growth levels are similar on the 2 routes, capacity increases can be provided for both by giving new longer trains (which in an ideal world would be push-pull trains like IC225s but with passenger space in the DVT) to the ECML, and cascading the 225s to GWML. This is why I'm checking platform lengths.
2. The best way of continuing to serve Pembroke & Tenby with direct trains is a push-pull LHCS solution with an electric loco swapped for a diesel at Swansea. This works better because all you have to do is fit TDM to some 47s or 57s. Draging an EMU with a diesel wouldn't work as well because you would either need to make the EMU cabs able to control the diesel loco or make the diesel run round at Carmarthen.
3. The ERTMS plans were to fit the GWML first, this gives the IC225s the best chance they've ever had to go at their 140mph design speed. Not sure if it is still planned due to the delays experinced on the Cambrian, but if the roll-out gets back on track the 225s would have 14 years of 140mph running if they are moved to the GWML.

You could introduce new EMUs on both routes and split the IC225 fleet, using the 225s for all the services that extend beyond the wires. That could make maintaining very small fleets difficult for the depots concerned though.

 

[MCR247]

So much easier to just electrify the MML, but noo that would be too simple....

 

[ainsworth74]

Would 91 + 10x mrk4 + DVT on the Bristol route and 91 + 8x mrk4 + DVT on the Swansea route work though?

In regards to platform length, no idea, I know very little specifics on that area. As for whether those formations would work from a technically stand point I can't see why not. 91+8xMk4 would definitely work and I would expect 10xMk4 to as well seeing as the original plan was for the 225 sets to be 91+11Mk4+DVT.

 

[anthony263]

FGW did run 2X 5 carriage class 180's to Bristol TM during the peak a few years ago.