Alternative to IEP Program

[Zoe]

Is there any benefit in ordering tilting trains though that won't ever tilt?

 

[Nym]

Recon theres enough life left in the HSTs to have time to wire the MML (all of it, all the way to Wakfeild and Doncaster, 57s can be used for Scarbrough), Paddington - Bristol / Swansea (sod newbury) and make good in-roads into Paddington - Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Birmingham New Street

The 222s can be used for the West Country services, and send the 220, nicely lengthened by Bombardier along with the 222s over to TPE with pantos onboard...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there any benefit in ordering tilting trains though that won't ever tilt?

To run from Birmingham and Manchester to Edinbrugh and Glasgow, yes

Homogonisation of all passenger stock between Lancaster and Caistars, and EPS speeds greatly in excess of non-EPS speeds...

So we're looking at having to replace say, 100 LDPE diagrams with electric.

Midland Mainline Total Electrification: 13 HST + 27 Mediran = 40 Sets

East Coast - Proberbly need to keep 5 diesel sets for their extended services, Aberdeen, Inverness and Hull Paragon. So they can loose 10 HSTs = 10 Sets

That leaves 50 LDPE Diesel services that need covering by an HST...

117 43s with FGW, how many sets can be replaced with electric with wires going up...?

Then theres stealing from XC by electrifying Oxford - Birmingham, another 10, 12 from VT, all adds up, especially if Bombardier extend them for the new operators, theres plenty with just starting with the MML and Paddington - Swansea and Bristol...

With back of the fag packet maths, some extentions to Voyagers and Medirans by Bombardier (they'll all need doing soon enough anyway, would be about £300mil to do) there should be enough diesel stuff to go round if the above is wired... The voyagers being changed over to ElectroDiesel would help oceans with fuel consumption..

 

[Zoe]

To run from Birmingham and Manchester to Edinbrugh and Glasgow, yes

This route would benefit from tilt. I thought you were suggesting that there should be a large 390 order to replace diesel trains on all the lines to be electrified. Not all of these lines would benefit from tilt.

 

[Nym]

This route would benefit from tilt. I thought you were suggesting that there should be a large 390 order to replace diesel trains on all the lines to be electrified. Not all of these lines would benefit from tilt.

No, because I was sudgesting ordering more 390s to replace the 221s and 185s on the Midlands / North West - Scotland Routes, to displace diesel stock, not to have a follow on order for the rest of the Electric Mainlines in the UK. That should be put out to tender to Bombardier, Alstom and Siemens, with a condition of UK Assembly

 

[O L Leigh]

East Coast - Proberbly need to keep 5 diesel sets for their extended services, Aberdeen, Inverness and Hull Paragon. So they can loose 10 HSTs = 10 Sets

No. EC services are prime candidates for trimming back to eliminate the need for diesels running under the wires.

You run the Aberdeen/Inverness services all-electric to Edinburgh and terminate the electric set there, but have a guaranteed connecting diesel service (displaced Voyagers...?) for onward travel. Hull services could be given up altogether with a payment made to Northern/TPE/EMT/Hull Trains to operate a connecting shuttle service. The distance off the mainline is modest enough to allow that one to slide.

EC really should be an all-electric operator, as should VT. Given the distances that each of these operators run their diesel services under the wires both of these TOC's really don't have any excuse to operate their services in such a way.

O L Leigh

 

[Nym]

Would definatly agree there, what would you say to Oxford - Birmingham getting wired, and VT can have some diesel, or Electrodiesel, for the Chester services, or, loco haul it, or shove wires up to Chester, but for 2tph I don't see how thats economical. Even though Birmingham - Oxford would only really benifit 1tph, it releases a lot of diesel stock, and lays the foundation for more cascades and new services from Paddington to Birmingham / Lemington Spa etc.

I do think theres some good substance in moving all the 220/221/222 to ElectroDiesel operation, if they're going to live mainly with Cross Country, FGW and VT, the LDPE north of Edinburgh from EC could be handed over to XC.

ED would be ideal for XC, and it would be what it used to be, providing direct links wherever possible.

With the core services now running from Manchester, Manchester - Reading and Manchester - Bristol could be handed over to LDPE EMU operation, and the spare voyagers (now 7 or 8 carrage electrodiesel) if not all cascaded over to FGW could re-instate lost links on the XC Network

Also, if electodieseled with 3rd Rail Pickups on the transformer carrages it would be able to operate onto the SWML with a small infill between Reading and Basingstoke

 

[Zoe]

Would it be possible to timetable a London to Aberdeen or Inverness service as a single train (only in the public timetable as they would have to remain separate in the WTT) but with passengers required to change units at Edinburgh? That way the onward service from Edinburgh would not leave until the service from London has arrived.

 

[Nym]

Would it be possible to timetable a London to Aberdeen or Inverness service as a single train (only in the public timetable as they would have to remain separate in the WTT) but with passengers required to change units at Edinburgh? That way the onward service from Edinburgh would not leave until the service from London has arrived.

You mean like many operators currently do anyway on their public timetables, showing onward connections on their main timetables?

 

[Zoe]

You mean like many operators currently do anyway on their public timetables, showing onward connections on their main timetables?

No, these connections don't have to be held. What I'm suggesting is timetable it as a single service with a change of unit at Edinburgh. That way your connection is guaranteed. If it was simply an onward connection then in the interest of the passengers wanting to travel from Edinburgh to Aberdeen or Inverness then it may not be held.

There are some disadvantages to not running beyond Edinburgh. Not everyone can change trains as easily as others, dissabled, elderly and people with heavy luggage have to be taken into account. I also expect some people would transfer to air if through services were withdrawn.

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't really know enough about XC's operations to comment on what would or wouldn't be a good idea. However, electrification of the main routes in and out of London together with in-fill electrification at certain key points on the XC network would surely reduce the need for diesel/bi-mode traction further.

What I mean by that is that if FGW can operate an electric service as far as, say, Plymouth with an EC-style connecting diesel service for points further west, surely XC can piggy-back onto these connecting services to provide electric XC services from Plymouth to places like Manchester/Glasgow, with perhaps a further connecting diesel service linking the WCML with the ECML between, say, Birmingham and Grantham or Manchester and Leeds/York. Better yet, make these key routes for in-fill electrification and run them on the wires throughout.

O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, these connections don't have to be held. What I'm suggesting is timetable it as a single service with a change of unit at Edinburgh. That way your connection is guaranteed.

There are some disadvantages to not running beyond Edinburgh. Not everyone can change trains as easily as others, dissabled, elderly and people with heavy luggage have to be taken into account. I also expect some people would transfer to air if through services were withdrawn.

That's why I said guaranteed connecting services.

A late-running direct service would have the same impact in terms of imported delays as a late-departing connecting service. All that would need to be altered for the benefit of delay attribution is traincrew diagramming (to permit sufficient room to prevent further knock-on delays) and the DfT's view that two trains can be viewed as a single service.

O L Leigh

 

[Nym]

Basically, we don't need a new Bi-Mode train, if wires go up at a steady pace in the right places, not the politically correct ones. If we need bi-mode trains we can use 220/221/222 units cascaded off diesel routes by new wires, (or buying enough 390s), with the addition of Pantograph carrages, without paying billions to the japs, just millions to Derby...

If I'm thinking right that would leave us with no significant amount of Intercity Diesel Only stock in the country, and every IC Route wired (Excluding the Chiltern Mainline and Cardiff - Holyhead line, but that will be served by HSW1 anyway, won't stop at Crewe or Bristol Parkway though, let alone Hereford)

Oviously we'd have the 180s... And 67+Mk3 etc

 

[O L Leigh]

Basically, we don't need a new Bi-Mode train, if wires go up at a steady pace in the right places, not the politically correct ones.

A convert...!!!! Thank you for seeing the light.

If we need bi-mode trains we can use 220/221/222 units cascaded off diesel routes by new wires, (or buying enough 390s), with the addition of Pantograph carrages, without paying billions to the japs, just millions to Derby...

But we don't. It may not be politically expedient, but there is no reason why some of the existing services have to continue in the form that they currently do. There's no reason whatsoever why the rail map cannot be re-drawn and the parameters changed so that electrification projects can be properly targetted.

And not just on the intercity map either. I see no reason why MML electrification to Sheffield together with wiring of the XC route from Manchester via Sheffield to Leed and York couldn't see a further extension of suburban electrification in the South/West Yorks connurbation. I know this isn't really pertinent to this particular thread, but electrification of long-distance routes should be allied with electrification of local suburban routes also, as these often provide the springboard for further electrification schemes.

O L Leigh

 

[Nym]

Such as in addition to the Lancs Triangle, Lostock - Hindley (Bolton - Wigan) and extention of 3rd Rail from Kirby & Southport - Wallgate (find a use for this dual voltage stock we're being sent). It would leave Vic - Atherton - Wigan as a diesel island, but all but 2tph to Bolton would be leccy, and all services through Piccadilly would be electric.

So, for example, Vic - Bolton - Wallgate would become Vic - Bolton - Wallgate - Kirby - Liverpool - Chester?

Small extra bits would always be nice, but I don't think we'll get them

Or put simply, when diesel trains are about to die, work out if it's cheaper to buy two more sets of diesels or wires and 1 set of electric, and it will quite often be the latter, and the more gets done, the less infill will be needed.

If all the core Cross Country was done, with Dual Voltage LDPE EMUs, Scotland - Plymouth and Manchester - Basingstoke wired would mean all but the odd extentions could be Electric.

The infill between Birmingham - Tamworth - Derby would see local DMUs cascaded, as would a diversion via Nuneaton & Leicster etc.

Of course that would see a full elecric route from Southampton to Trafford Park for example, next up Felixtowe?

 

[Blindtraveler]

i'm another bi-mode man myself. Fit pantograph trailer to all voyager, maridian and adilantay and at the same gut the 220 and 221 internally and rebuild sorting the many problems and as has also been said, lets have some shorter 6 car 390s, again with maybe some design faults looked at, the whole managed by bombardia darby.

 

[jopsuk]

No, these connections don't have to be held. What I'm suggesting is timetable it as a single service with a change of unit at Edinburgh. That way your connection is guaranteed. If it was simply an onward connection then in the interest of the passengers wanting to travel from Edinburgh to Aberdeen or Inverness then it may not be held.

It would finally be a good use of platforms 8&9! Though more likely it would wind up being 1 and 10.

 

[Nym]

i'm another bi-mode man myself. Fit pantograph trailer to all voyager, maridian and adilantay and at the same gut the 220 and 221 internally and rebuild sorting the many problems and as has also been said, lets have some shorter 6 car 390s, again with maybe some design faults looked at, the whole managed by bombardia darby.

1) Fitting a pantograph and transformer to a Class 180 Aldente would be pointless, it's a diesel mechanical/hydrolic unit.

2) The voyagers don't need an internal re-build, they need the seats moving into the correct place

3) a 6 car 390 would not improve capacity on the Northern end terminating WCML, idealy it would be an order for 7 or 8 car units.

4) The 390 Pendilino is not built in Derby, or by Bombardier, the're built by Alstom in Italy. And I don't think the French would want the British arm of a Canadian company managing one of their building projects in Italy.

 

[starrymarkb]

1)

4) The 390 Pendilino is not built in Derby, or by Bombardier, the're built by Alstom in Italy. And I don't think the French would want the British arm of a Canadian company managing one of their building projects in Italy.

Though the first batch of Pendolinos were built in Birmingham (at the now closed MetroCammell factory)

Alstom and Bombardier have worked together though. The ICN is a Pendolino built by Bombardier in Switzerland (with Alstom, Bombardier and Pininfarina logos displayed on the sides of the driving cars) The NINA and Lotschberger units for BLS are another joint venture and some of the S-Bahn units for DB were a joint Adtranz/Alstom build

 

[Blindtraveler]

sorry, should have excluded

1) Fitting a pantograph 180s, my overtired mistake. was more thinking of the 6 car units as replacements for TPE to run on the manchester Scotland, yes we do need some 8 Carage sets also. Alstom made a hash of so many projects that it might have been worth considdering a 390 design but ammended to be UK built by somebody else. as this is unlikely to happen however, to me the Bi mode option does make sense if they insist on doing it but hoping the sound proofing of underfloor engines is looked at as this is one of my favourite niggles with the Voyagers but doesnt seam to be so much of ann issue on units like the 222s. OK then move the voyager seating around but I was more thinking along the lines of solving the luggage situasion, providing more space for the "Gangway passenger", tipup seats etc and perhaps addressing the fantastic arae of bangs, rattles and shudders which seam to prevent work, sleap etc. some decent mobile phone enhancers would be a plan on the XC sets. and transformer to a Class 180 Aldente would be pointless, it's a diesel mechanical/hydrolic unit.

2) The voyagers don't need an internal re-build, they need the seats moving into the correct place

3) a 6 car 390 would not improve capacity on the Northern end terminating WCML, idealy it would be an order for 7 or 8 car units.

4) The 390 Pendilino is not built in Derby, or by Bombardier, the're built by Alstom in Italy. And I don't think the French would want the British arm of a Canadian company managing one of their building projects in Italy.

 

[Nym]

Though the first batch of Pendolinos were built in Birmingham (at the now closed MetroCammell factory)

Alstom and Bombardier have worked together though. The ICN is a Pendolino built by Bombardier in Switzerland (with Alstom, Bombardier and Pininfarina logos displayed on the sides of the driving cars) The NINA and Lotschberger units for BLS are another joint venture and some of the S-Bahn units for DB were a joint Adtranz/Alstom build

Yes, I know they where built in Washwood Heath, but if they were built now it would be in Italy, the point still stands of why would Bombardier need to get involved? The design for Pendilino UK works, and has a better TASS system than used by Bombadier, all you'd need to do is phone Alstom and say, 15 more of them Pendilinos please, 7 carrages long with DMFR - MF - TS(SH) - MS - TS - MS - DMS, or 8 carrages with an extra MS/TS.

8 carrages wouldn't even need type acceptance, since they were when the 390s where first tested...

 

[tbtc]

No. EC services are prime candidates for trimming back to eliminate the need for diesels running under the wires.

You run the Aberdeen/Inverness services all-electric to Edinburgh and terminate the electric set there, but have a guaranteed connecting diesel service (displaced Voyagers...?) for onward travel. Hull services could be given up altogether with a payment made to Northern/TPE/EMT/Hull Trains to operate a connecting shuttle service. The distance off the mainline is modest enough to allow that one to slide.

EC really should be an all-electric operator, as should VT. Given the distances that each of these operators run their diesel services under the wires both of these TOC's really don't have any excuse to operate their services in such a way.

O L Leigh

If you are scrapping the direct link from Hull/ Aberdeen/ Dundee etc to London, and asking people to change at Doncaster/Edinburgh onto an electric service then why not do the same with the GWML? Electrify to Cardiff/Bristol and ask people to change there? Or electrify to Swansea/ Exeter (or Plymouth) and get people to change there... then there's no need for "diesels under the wires" or "drags" or "IEP" or any of this. The reason there's this debate is because the GWML has more branches. If these don't all need a direct London link then you simplify the "problem"

 

[Daimler]

If you are scrapping the direct link from Hull/ Aberdeen/ Dundee etc to London, and asking people to change at Doncaster/Edinburgh onto an electric service then why not do the same with the GWML? Electrify to Cardiff/Bristol and ask people to change there? Or electrify to Swansea/ Exeter (or Plymouth) and get people to change there... then there's no need for "diesels under the wires" or "drags" or "IEP" or any of this. The reason there's this debate is because the GWML has more branches. If these don't all need a direct London link then you simplify the "problem"

There's been a lot of talk in this thread of doing what's best for passengers - making them change trains (particularly if they're heading down to the south west with large amounts of luggage) most emphatically is not. You simply the problem, but at the cost of providing a good service - many passengers would probably prefer no electrification at all to having to change trains on a journey where previously a direct service was offered. I'm still going with a change of traction at the station where the wires end myself - be it from electric loco to diesel loco, or EMU to diesel loco.

EDIT: Ooh, 1000 posts at last

 

[tbtc]

So electrification of the MML and XC would release enough diesel stock, actually, yeah.

Ordering more Class 390s would release a significant amount of 221s from Virgin West Coast, replacing the 221s on Birmingham - Scotland, for Manchester - Scotland the 185s would be needed elsewhere in TPE anyway.

Midland Mainline would release all of the stock from it if done completly, 27 sets released.

Birmingham - Oxford would release all the Manchester - Reading sets. I think thats 8 or 9 sets.

Birmingham - Bristol Parkway, another load of ex. Manchester - Bristol sets. another 9 or 10 if I'm thinking right

So, order more trains and free 12 units, throw some wires up and free up upto another 50

This is my thinking.

It wouldn't take much to wire:

Bedford - Nottingham/Derby - Swinton - Wakefield/Doncaster

Meadowhall - Barnsley - Leeds

Crewe - Chester

Selby - Hull

(after the current Manchester/Liverpool/Blackpool/ Reading/Oxford electrifications)

That then frees up:

27 x five/six car EMT 222s (the average length is around five and a half coaches, but the units are currently in four/five/seven coach formation)

21 x five car VT 221s (a 57 or two needed to drag EMUs from Chester to Holyhead on a token service)

5 x 5 car HT 180s

Bundle of NR DMUs (York - Hull, Leeds - Nottingham etc)

13 x EMT HST

So, you have over fifty 125mph DMUs. Give GC some of the EMT HSTs to release their five 180s (gives them a common fleet etc), which means all fifteen 180s are free to run on the GWML

No IEP needed, just some concentrated electrification where there is the best cost/benefit
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's been a lot of talk in this thread of doing what's best for passengers - making them change trains (particularly if they're heading down to the south west with large amounts of luggage) most emphatically is not. You simply the problem, but at the cost of providing a good service - many passengers would probably prefer no electrification at all to having to change trains on a journey where previously a direct service was offered. I'm still going with a change of traction at the station where the wires end myself - be it from electric loco to diesel loco, or EMU to diesel loco.

EDIT: Ooh, 1000 posts at last

I was just responding to O L Leigh 's idea of cutting long established Scottish links to London by suggesting that doing the same on the GWML would eliminate the need for any of this argument

I think that with some targetted electrification elsewhere (and wiring from London to Oxford) I can find enough 125mph DMUs to replace GWML HSTs on a "one for one" basis though

 

[Daimler]

I think your post reveals just how ill-advised prioritising GWML electrification is right now. That said, most of the DMUs you've mentioned are a good deal shorter than what the GWML needs - especially when you consider the very poor seats/carriage ratio of the Voyagers, so some new trains would still be necessary (or retaining some HSTs, even).

It's all academic, sadly, as the GWML electrification is going ahead.

(On a slightly different note, perhaps someone might be able to explain what's going on with various overbridges between Reading & Oxford on the GWML - they all seem to be being raised with new vehicle 'decks' above the railway. Is this for electrification, or is it gauge enhancement for container trains?)

 

[O L Leigh]

There's been a lot of talk in this thread of doing what's best for passengers - making them change trains (particularly if they're heading down to the south west with large amounts of luggage) most emphatically is not. You simply the problem, but at the cost of providing a good service - many passengers would probably prefer no electrification at all to having to change trains on a journey where previously a direct service was offered.

This is the problem with talking about targetted rail electrification, IEP and generally bringing the railway kicking and screaming into the 20th Century (no, that isn't a mistake).

I say it again, we need rail electrification and bi-mode IEP will just be used as an excuse not to do it putting our rail infrastructure even further back into the Dark Ages. Ideally I would like to see the entire GW intercity network wired and the existing services preserved, but if we can only do some routes then we should be targetting those that would return the greatest benefit. If that means that some of the more lightly used portions of the routes are temporarily downgraded to diesel operated feeder services.

And this need not mean a reduction in the speed or convenience of the service. By preserving limited stopping patterns and high running speeds, particularly with the advantages of electric traction, journey times need not be any longer than now.

O L Leigh

 

[starrymarkb]

I think that with some targetted electrification elsewhere (and wiring from London to Oxford) I can find enough 125mph DMUs to replace GWML HSTs on a "one for one" basis though

on a seat for seat basis, set for set or coach for coach?

 

[Daimler]

This is the problem with talking about targetted rail electrification, IEP and generally bringing the railway kicking and screaming into the 20th Century (no, that isn't a mistake).

I say it again, we need rail electrification and bi-mode IEP will just be used as an excuse not to do it putting our rail infrastructure even further back into the Dark Ages. Ideally I would like to see the entire GW intercity network wired and the existing services preserved, but if we can only do some routes then we should be targetting those that would return the greatest benefit. If that means that some of the more lightly used portions of the routes are temporarily downgraded to diesel operated feeder services.

And this need not mean a reduction in the speed or convenience of the service. By preserving limited stopping patterns and high running speeds, particularly with the advantages of electric traction, journey times need not be any longer than now.

O L Leigh

I agree with what you say, but considering the current frankly limited scope of GWML electrification (London-Bristol/Oxford/maybe Cardiff), what would you define as a destination only worthy of a 'feeder service'? For instance, how would you approach the current London-Plymouth/Penzance services down the Berks & Hants? Simply run them as diesel trains all the way, as is the current plan? What about trains to Swansea - abandon the idea of direct services here? If electrification is only carried out up to Bristol Parkway, I can't see Cardiff losing its direct services. I'm not trying to counter your view - I'm trying to understand more precisely how you'd propose to approach it.

As it stands, I think some sort of through train provision (ideally, in my opinion, in the form of diesel locos to haul the electric trains past the limits of electrification) is absolutely necessary if GWML electrification is limited to London-Bristol (Temple Meads/Parkway).

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm not advocating the current GWML scheme, but a much grander vision. These schemes are next to totally pointless and won't provide the improvements and benefits intended.

The GWML is a complicated set of routes but with the right vision and impetus there is no reason why they can't all be wired. Heck, if we could do the WCML and all it's various routes in the 1960's and 1970's and provide an electrified suburban network for (parts of) the North West, West Mids and Strathclyde then we can surely do the same again. Ideally that's the sort of vision I'm talking about. Wire up the MML, the GWML network, XC routes from, say, Oxford through to Brum, Derby and Sheffield to Leeds, York and the ECML, and then in-fill to link up places like Manchester and Sheffield. Also, lets see some wires going up north of Edinburgh and Glasgow too.

O L Leigh

 

[Daimler]

I'm not advocating the current GWML scheme, but a much grander vision. These schemes are next to totally pointless and won't provide the improvements and benefits intended.

The GWML is a complicated set of routes but with the right vision and impetus there is no reason why they can't all be wired. Heck, if we could do the WCML and all it's various routes in the 1960's and 1970's and provide an electrified suburban network for (parts of) the North West, West Mids and Strathclyde then we can surely do the same again. Ideally that's the sort of vision I'm talking about. Wire up the MML, the GWML network, XC routes from, say, Oxford through to Brum, Derby and Sheffield to Leeds, York and the ECML, and then in-fill to link up places like Manchester and Sheffield. Also, lets see some wires going up north of Edinburgh and Glasgow too.

O L Leigh

Ah right, I'm with you now - though it must be recalled that the WCML was electrified in two distinct phases, with diesels taking over from the electrics on Anglo-Scottish services at Crewe (?) for - if I recall correctly - over a decade, and the whole lot was eventually electrified. I suppose hauled stock made this easier, since BR could simply replace the diesels with electrics when the full route was complete (it also helped, of course, that being a unified network it could then easily find other work for the displaced diesels).

But yes, it sounds like a much more sensible plan. Perhaps - considering our current financial woes - it would be better to electrify the GWML on a rolling basis over a decade or two and retain the HSTs for each service that cannot be electric-run yet. That is to say, firstly electrify London-Bristol/Oxford, and buy some electric trains for those routes, replacing a few HSTs. Then perhaps electrify to Cardiff & Exeter, and replace the HSTs that are freed off by this. Finally, electrify to Swansea & Plymouth (or even Penzance?) and replace the remainder of the HST fleet with all-electric trains.

This still leaves various bits and bobs, such as Cheltenham Services, Worcester & Hereford, and the various South-West branches, but would mean that no interim trains are needed.

Of course, I suppose the problem - as ever - is that successive governments are free to cancel or postpone such schemes at their whim.

 

[Zoe]

Finally, electrify to Swansea & Plymouth (or even Penzance?)

I can't see the wires ever going beyond Plymouth. The largest conurbation beyond there is the Camborne/Redruth conurbation with a population of about 40000. I just can't see electrification justified. If Cornwall had independence or devolution like other Celtic nations though.....

 

[Nym]

If they did what origonally planned...

Paddington - Bristol via Bath Spa
Paddington - Swansea via Bristol Parkway and Cardiff Central
Paddington - Oxford
Bristol Parkway - Bristol
Loose newbury...

Paddington - Plymouth - Penzance Retained as diesel until Bristol - Plymouth is wired, then 1tp2h via B&H to Penzance diesel, and 1tp2h (opersite) to Plymouth via Bristol Electric

Paddington - Bath - Bristol: New build LDPE EMU

Paddington - Parkway - Cardiff - Swansea: New build LDPE EMU
Camarthen, tough tom titties or loco haulage for 1tpd

Paddington - Oxford - Great Malvern: Oxford terminator Electric, Gt. Malvern Diesel

Paddington - Cheltenham Spa: Retain as diesel

I work this out as off paddington
Initally: 5tph Electric, 2.5tph Diesel

Wires to Plymouth (along with cross country): 5.5tph Electric 2tph Diesel

Loco Haulage or Wires from Oxford to Gt. Malvern 6.5tph Electric 1tph Diesel

Now, by my rough calculations, the inital 2.5tph Diesel would need...

Paddington - Penzance - Plymouth 9 diagrams?
Paddington - Oxford - Gt. Malvern 6 diagrams?
Paddington - Cheltenham Spa 3 diagrams?

So, lets say they'll need 20 diesel trainsets, intially, this can be HSTs, but wiring the MML would release ?27 class 222 trainsets, cascade these to FGW, and then go concentrate on wiring elsewhere.

EDIT: The last three posts make this much more relevant

It would mean diesels under wires to Swindon and to Reading before the B&H line splits off, but, it means the lion's share of FGWland would become electric.

Combining with the MML it would mean being able to withdraw a hell of a lot of HSTs, if not all. When life expired, and Paddington - Bath - Bristol, Paddington - Parkway - Cardiff - Swansea, Paddington - Oxford, Parkway - Bristol, and St Pancras - Leicster - Derby / Nottingham - Sheffeild - Wakfeild / Doncaster. With electric trains replacing the diesel entirely under wires services (Brum - Scotland, and some EC services) with 390s for WC and a follow on to the FGW/MML orders.