MCR247
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 10,292
You won't fit an 11 car set in a lot of the platforms, like I have already said....
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Latest on IEP/GWML
- Thread starter starrymarkb
- Start date
- Status
You won't fit an 11 car set in a lot of the platforms, like I have already said....
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
As previously discussed it was considered but due to recent improvements on the MML it was decided that electrification was not needed as much as on the GW.
krus_aragon
Established Member
<layman's assessment disclaimer>
The Maesteg junction/bay is on the up side, and the Vale junction/bay is on the down side. There'd be space to extend the up platform up, and the down platform down. The only points that get in the way are those from the down line to the Maesteg branch, which is about three coach lengths down from the current platform end. Assuming that no eleven coach expresses want to go to Maesteg, I think the platform could even be extended a little past this junction, given a bit of resignalling.
I quite like this version of events. As the Minister would say, can someone put the wheels in motion?
However I'd couple it with whoevers suggestion it was to in the short term use the best of the HST stock for the non electrified routes, and once MML is wired cascade the 222s onto those services, potentially with Bombardier's pantograph coach conversion completed.
However I'd couple it with whoevers suggestion it was to in the short term use the best of the HST stock for the non electrified routes, and once MML is wired cascade the 222s onto those services, potentially with Bombardier's pantograph coach conversion completed.
Ok, so having 10 pasenger cars in a set won't work. However the current formation is 9-car sets (plus the DVT for luggage/bikes). As I said, I don't think the class 91 locomotive would need to fit at most stations, so that's only a 10 vehicle train (and the DVT is shorter than the passenger coaches). Do mrk4s have Selective Door Opening? if they do, it'd probablly be acceptable to tell passengers for the smaller places like Bridgend, Neath and Port Talbot not to travel in the TSOE.
I think that 2 180s would come to a total length of 233.02m. That's only about 11m shorter than 244.99m for the standard IC225 of 9 mrk4 passenger coaches, a mrk4 DVT and a class 91. This means any platform that could take an entire 10-car 180 could take an IC225 rake with only 11m of the 19.40m class 91 outside the platform. Now that I've added up the length of the train all I need to know is the actual platform lengths, are they listed anywhere?
Also, I don't think anyone answered my question of whether mrk4s have anything to prevent them going down the Pembroke & Tenby. The IC125 rakes are too long for most platforms down there anyway, so I don't think an extra coach would make all that much difference.
anthony263
Established Member
It will depend on the length of the stock used, are the MK4 carriages longer than the MK3 carriages? if they are then i doubt they would be able to get through Narbeth station which has a very tight curve through the platform that is tight especially with the MK3 stock
The information I've found on the internet that I used to calculate the total train length says the Mrk4s (except the DVT at 18.59m) are 23m, the same as Mrk3s, so it is a possiblity.
tbtc
Veteran Member
First of all, FGW run 58xHSTs, whereas East Coast only have 31x225s. I appreciate that some FGW services would move to IEP, or would remain diesel (Cornwall etc), certainly in the short term, but I'm not sure the maths works.
Also, you think that longer trains would give the ECML growth potential. Fine, but have you checked which ECML stations can cope with longer trains? The 225 rakes are eleven vehicles long already; is there space at each station for something longer? Or is this just about getting 225s to your line?
With respect, I don't think that direct trains from London to Pembroke is going to be a deciding factor in the stock used on the GWML. Bigger places on the ECML (Middlesbrough/ Sunderland etc) lost through trains to London when the line was electrified twenty years ago. This is the price paid for electrification. At the moment there are lots of termini from Paddington, but I don't expect all of these will be worth retaining when electrification happens (e.g. the wires will end at Oxford - will it really be worth running IEP to Banbury, or will they just tell people to use Chiltern/ change at Oxford?)...
I must agree that the summer only Summer Saturdays through working to Pembroke Dock will not have a major effect on the choice of new stock. However when I have travelled on that train west of Swansea it has been loaded well enough, so some thought will need to be given as to how to cope with the number of passengers that do travel onit. I suspect that most weeks there will be too many for a 153 or a 150.
tbtc
Veteran Member
I'm sure the loadings are fine, I'm just trying to be realistic on these threads about the links that will be lost at GWML electrification.
At the moment you have Paddington services to:
Greenford
Marlow
Henley
Reading
Oxford
Banbury
Worcester
Great Malvern
Hereford
Cheltenham
Cardiff
Swansea
Carmarthen
Pembroke
Bristol
Weston
Exeter
Plymouth
Newquay
Penzance
Paignton
Pewsey
Heathrow
(forgive me if I have omitted any, am going in a broad anti-clockwise circle)
So, if my memory and maths are correct, that's twenty three different places, on eleven "spokes".
Now, I appreciate that IEP will allow through running to non-electrified lines. And Crossrail will take over Heathrow. And Greenford will become a "stand alone" route terminating at West Ealing. But, some places are going to end up losing a direct London service. If it wasn't worth running through trains to Sunderland and Middlesbrough (approx 500,000 people live in/between the two, when you add on Hartlepool/ Stockton etc), and not worth running through trains to the seaside (Scarborough), and even Humberside got relegated to one train a day) then there's a good chance that London trains will go no further than Cardiff/Swansea/Bristol etc. Will it be worth bringing branchlines up to standard to receive these 26m coaches?
(whereas, electrifying the MML from Bedford to Wakefield/Doncaster would mean all but two "mainline" services a day would be EMU run - the only two exceptions are the Lincoln extension and the Corby -Oakham trip... the MML is pretty self contained and could be electrified without affecting the service pattern)
Kneedown
Established Member
What recent improvements to the MML exactly? I don't think i've been asleep but i can't remember any improvements!
No, it's not worth electrifying branches that only get seasonal through trains from London. But the through trains also carry people who have changed at places like Exeter/Plymouth (for Newquay) or Cardiff/Swansea (for Pembroke Dock), and local passengers so it can't be sensible to just abolish them without providing some sort of additional capacity, even if it does involve diesel and a change of trains.
Realistically, I suppose it will depend on what work would need to be done and how much it would cost, as to whether 26m traisn will be able to run to soem of the se destinations.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Agreed. Ignore the one train a day from Lincoln (which is just a 222 filling in for a Sprinter than normally worked Lincoln - Nottingham) and the one 222 which serves Melton Mowbray/ Oakham on a Corby duty, plus the token Sumer Saturday service from York to Scarborough) and *all* EMT HST/222s would run under the wires. The line is already wired to Bedford, the line is already wired from Doncaster to Leeds, all that needs doing is the section inbetween. It'd also "save" DMUs which currently run routes like Sheffield - Rotherham - Leeds, Sheffield - Doncaster - Adwick etc
Plus, wiring the MML would give a good business case for doing some other routes:
Birmingham - Derby (so that all XC services from Birmingham to Edinburgh/Glasgow run under the wires)
Meadowhall - Barnsley - Leeds (would free up a lot of DMUs)
Derby - Matlock/Stoke
Although I would like to see electrification of the GWML for obvious reaons, I have to agree that there are more benefits to doing the MML first.
However, it may also be the case that wiring the GWML to Bristol and Cardiff, without any branches, may be preferable to the government for some other reason!
However, it may also be the case that wiring the GWML to Bristol and Cardiff, without any branches, may be preferable to the government for some other reason!
tbtc
Veteran Member
I think a lot of it comes down to politics, sadly.
I think the Cardiff "Valley" lines are more of a priority than the GWML (self contained, efficient use of stock, Pacers are more "life expired" than HSTs, despite being younger). However, how many marginal votes are there in wiring the Valleys for any Government?
From a political perspective this makes sense. Cameron and Hammond will be able to say that although hard economic times prevent full electrification to Swansea,the Government is committed to investment in general and Wales in particular and can therefore announce electrification to Cardiff.
Accompany this statement with an announcement on new rolling stock, a new factory in North East England and a commitment to green transport and the Government should be able to fend off negative comments from politicians in Swansea.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Hence my dislike of the WAG Express. Running trains for the sake of politicians or for the sake of "boundaries" rather than for the sake of passenger demand is wrong.
Would you say the same about buses driving around empty then on some routes which could be used to provide a better service on routes where there is demand?
tbtc
Veteran Member
Yeah
Since we have limited resources in public transport (bus/ tram/ train etc) we need to match these to where the demand is.
Transport should be run for passenger demand, not for political vanity
Thanks for pointing out that there are a whole lot of direct services from Paddington on the GWML, which I didn't realize. However, I think that capital and operating cost will be primary drivers going forward. To me it seems irresponsible to operate diesel rolling stock under the wires when its costs so much more to run those diesels then electric rolling stock. In another thread today, I mentioned that I was not surprised that TOCs did not charge a premium for tickets on diesel trains. I think that a fuel surcharge might be the answer for TOC to recover the additional cost when they run diesels under the wires.
Going forward I think that electricification would be done on routes based on several factors incuding the number of trains per hour on the line and the number and route miles of running under the wires you avoid. I was thinking that most route sections that get 8 or more trains per hour would be have high priorty for electricification, those with 6-7 would have low priorty and those with 5 or less should really be considered unless there are network synergies. For example these line sections on Great Western Route, will be electrified by 2020:
- Nottingham Beeston 11tph peak
- Cardiff to Newport 9tph peak
- Didcot Swindon 8tph peak
- Sheffield Swinton 8tph peak
- Stoke Works Junction Gloucester 8 tph peak
- Chesterfield South Jn Tapton Jn 8tph peak
- North Staffordshire Junction Stenson Jn 8tph peak
- Leeds Huddersfield 7tph peak
- Harrowden Jn Kettering 7tph peak
- Stourbridge Snow Hill 7tph peak
- Dorridge Moor Street 7tph
- Bristol Temple Meads Taunton 6tph peak
- Leeds York 6tph peak
- Sheffield Chesterfield 6tph peak
- Loughborough Ratcliffe Jn 6tph peak
While these section could possibly be electrified where necessary after 2020:
- Swindon Bristol Parkway 4tph peak
- Leeds Harrogate 4tph peak
- Leeds Bradford Interchange 4tph peak
- Llanelli to Swansea 4tph peak
- Marylebone Aylesbury 4tph peak
- Marylebone Princes Risborough 4tph peak
After the HSTs become life expired and additional 125 mph electric rolling stock is acquired and failing further electricification, I could see some a reduction of running diesels under the wires through the elimination of services like the Highland Chieftan, the Northern Lights and the Hull Executive. On the GWML this should mean that passengers wishing to travel to Swansea, should change from electric trains to diesel trains when electricification ends.
What on earth would be the point of electrifying Llanelli to Swansea if there was no electrification at each end?
I don't want to seem rude, but it looks as though you have just plucked a random list of places from a brief glance at a timetable!
I don't want to seem rude, but it looks as though you have just plucked a random list of places from a brief glance at a timetable!
sprinterguy
Veteran Member
That list fails to consider that the majority of train services that run over the busiest route sections originate, and travel to, areas beyond the core section. Electrifying short, unconnected links such as those listed above will only mean that the majority of services will consist of diesels running under the (relatively unused) wires. As Greenback says, you seem to have plucked a random list of places from a brief glimpse at a timetable.
Long distance core routes, with few branches or services extending beyond the core route, are the best candidates for electrification, such as the MML, or short "infill" schemes between existing electrification.
Last edited:
I think I (mostly) agree. The frequencies you're looking at should be the Intercity services that use the lines that are being considered. For example Llanelli-Swansea has only 1 Intercity service each way per day (Carmarthen -> Paddington in the morning, return in the evening) with a few more on Sundays and summer Saturdays. Conversly there is a train every hour from Swansea to London (making up part of the twice an hour Cardiff to London service). Personally I think it might just be worthwhile extending that 2nd train each hour to Swansea with stops removed (so 2tph Swansea-London, with 1tph calling only at Cardiff, Newport, Bristol Parkway and Reading).
As for the list of Paddington services:
Greenford is apparently to be switched to self-contained DMU operation and I think Henley, Reading and Oxford electrifications are all commited.
Banbury has only direct services to London (Marylebone) anyway and the service to Paddington is infrequent and generally slower. I think it is also a Networker, not Intercity, service. For these reasons you could probablly force a change from electric services onto Networker Turbos at Oxford without causing very much inconvenience. I might be then be worth transfering the truncated service to Chiltern and extending it northwards to Birmingham if that's worthwhile and there's capacity on the Chiltern line to do so.
The Worcester/Great Malvern/Hereford line has more frequent services, but not all are Intercity. The frequency to Worcester is approaching hourly (some 2 hour gaps) so electrification would be the ideal option. However, because a number of the trips are DMUs not IC125s you could perhaps avoid wiring and retain Networker Turbos on their current services, either cut back to start at Oxford or running under the wires to Paddington. In this case the Hereford services, being the Intercity services and the least frequent of the three should use one of the following methods:
- Loco dragging IC EMU
- Intercity 225 (or new updated version) with a loco swap for a diesel at the end of the wires
- Intercity 125 all the way (as on Taunton/Plymouth/Penzance trips)
Carmarthen, with so few services, is ideal for the EMU drag or 225 loco-swap methods, provided the wires reach Swansea (and with an hourly service, it would be daft not to wire to Swansea). That also covers Cardiff.
The only sensible option for Pembroke Dock services, unless an EMU can control a diesel loco that is pushing it from behind, is the Intercity 225 loco-swap method. This is because, due to the reversal at Carmarthen, push-pull operation is needed.
Electrification is going to be announced Bristol Temple Meads via Bath apparently (based on the information in this topic).
That leaves the south-west England services: Weston, Paignton, Exeter, Plymouth, Newquay and Penzance. Like Swansea, there's an hourly service to Taunton. However, the distance from the sections expected at the moment is (about 90 miles (plus another 18 if Reading - Newbury isn't to be wired) vs 80 miles for Swansea (less if the rumor that the wires will reach Cardiff is true)) is greater. Even more so if you count the 40 odd miles of off-wire distance the services that go via Bristol use as well as the distance of the route via Westbury.
Anyway, staying with 125s is a decent option for these routes, though the services to and via and Weston-Super-Mare via Bristol Temple Meads would probablly be better being an EMU drag. However, without wiring all the way to Taunton my opinion is that the best option for this area is to wire from Reading to Westbury to make all sections above 100mph electric then use a push-pull solution like an IC225 and swap the loco for a diesel at Westbury.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've started a protest against the daft and enviromentally un-friendly bi-mode idea. I need as much support as I can get so please contact the DFT to campaign for the wires to reach Swansea and the bi-mode and 26m coaches concepts to be scrapped. My own protest letter follows should you wish to adapt or use it for your own complaint. Hope you can help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish to register my protest against the planed adoption of bi-mode multiple units for INTERCITY services. Some of the advantages of electrification are:
1. reduced weight of rolling stock, resulting in:
3. lower maintenance requirements / greater reliability
4. lower noise levels
a. improved performance
b. lower greenhouse gas emissions
2. no emissions at point of use3. lower maintenance requirements / greater reliability
4. lower noise levels
Adopting the bi-mode plan would sacrifice advantages 1 and 3 and would restrict advantages 2 and 4 to electrified sections. Enhancing the environmental advantage of rail should be the top priority in designing new trains. On these grounds I protest against the plan and suggest instead greater electrification, covering all the main INTERCITY destinations such as Swansea with places beyond this reached by hauling the trains with diesel locomotives. This would remove the internal noise from under-floor diesel engines.
Consideration should also be given to planned length of the stock. The plans are apparently for 26m stock, which I am told would be out of loading gauge on many of the routes the current 23m stock can serve. This would mean, for example, that the popular summer Saturday tourist trains to Tenby and Pembroke Dock would have to cease.
tbtc
Veteran Member
I can't see either happening on a regular basis.
Drags are only going to happen for engineering purposes etc
So Cheltenham loses its direct London services but Pembroke Dock is more important and keeps its direct London services?
Consider how long this will take. Train arrives. Electric loco detaches and moves away (into Siding One). Diesel loco runs from Siding Two to attach to the train. Driver then moves round to other cab and train leaves. So not only do you need a couple of sidings spare, you also need extra drivers and a lot of extra time. If people don't like the idea of splitting DMUs/EMUs part way along a route then imagine how complicated swapping electric locos for diesel locos is going to get. Non starter, sorry...
The GWML upgrade (electrification/ IEP/ stock replacement) will cover an area with a population of over five million beyond Greater London (Thames Valley/ Oxfordshire/ Wiltshire/ Gloucestershire/ Glamorgan/ Somerset/ Devon/ Cornwall. Its a massive task - FGW's annual passenger miles are around 5,000,000,000. The Summer Saturday trips to Tenby aren't going to influence any decision
It's more likely that services to Carmarthen and Pembroke Dock will be withdrawn following any electrification. Such a small market is hardly worth the effort of loco swaps or anything like that.
I think what will happen is that services will be replaced by local trains, strengthened capacity wise, but that a change of train will be required at wherever the elctric services end or begin.
I think what will happen is that services will be replaced by local trains, strengthened capacity wise, but that a change of train will be required at wherever the elctric services end or begin.
starrymarkb
Established Member
Slightly more generous width but otherwise standard.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And just read that Roger Ford has been banned from Hitachi/IEP press briefings, if so then someone is afraid of awkward questions (he has past form, pointing out that the Super Express 1+9 proposal's expected performance defied physics)
Wonder if the "Car Park Watchers" will return
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And just read that Roger Ford has been banned from Hitachi/IEP press briefings, if so then someone is afraid of awkward questions (he has past form, pointing out that the Super Express 1+9 proposal's expected performance defied physics)
Wonder if the "Car Park Watchers" will return
- Status