222 ohle

[O L Leigh]

An integrated network with connections that work (as suggested in the Foster report as an alternative to the bi-mode IEP) can only happen properly with a nationalised system.

I disagree.

The biggest user of bi-mode trains would be Arriva XC. I see little reason why they need to persist with long-distance through services when greater efficiencies could have been secured by breaking their routes into diesel and electric services with changes at certain key locations in order to facilitate this. This might be marginally less convenient for some of their passengers but it would reduce the extent to which diesel trains are run under the wires and, where electric traction could be substituted, maximised the efficiencies on offer.

This is a situation that exist now under the current operating conditions. It wouldn't require many in-fill electrification schemes through the Midlands and North to make offering electric services much more feasible and attractive.

Electrification will be slow to happen and piecemeal. So we are left with the bi-mode to at least use mains power/regenerative braking where it exists. This will encourage rather than discourage further wiring as operators discover the reduced diesel maintenance requirements and passengers the peace and quiet on offer under the wires.

Again I disagree.

Successful electrification schemes have always been tied to route modernisation and new rolling stock. If the alternative is a nearly-new sticking plaster in the form of bi-mode trains the incentive to electrify is removed. Additionally it rules out the trickle-down benefits brought about by the cascade of rolling stock to other areas and operators. In-fill electrification schemes tied with new electric stock for XC would free up Voyagers to strengthen services elsewhere or even to be cascaded to other operators. Likewise the extension of the MML electrification would free up all of EMT's HST's and Meridiens.

Bi-mode is a short-term gain that doesn't address any of the key needs of the railway. It is neither an efficient mode of operation nor does it benefit the operators or the passengers.

O L Leigh

 

[ukrob]

I disagree.

The biggest user of bi-mode trains would be Arriva XC. I see little reason why they need to persist with long-distance through services when greater efficiencies could have been secured by breaking their routes into diesel and electric services with changes at certain key locations in order to facilitate this. This might be marginally less convenient for some of their passengers but it would reduce the extent to which diesel trains are run under the wires and, where electric traction could be substituted, maximised the efficiencies on offer.

Don't studies and experience show that the average person off the street does not want to change trains? To them, it is also more than 'marginally less convenient' - they will just find another way of getting from A to B (or not go at all) meaning passenger numbers fall and there is even less incentive to improve services through electrification etc. Economics aside, making people change trains where they don't currently need to on and Intercity route is a huge backward step.

The solution? There is no easy affordable one.

 

[O L Leigh]

So we stick our heads in the sand and do nothing in order to preserve pointless long distance through services between, say, Penzance and Newcastle. Very few people travel on these services end-to-end, so realistically what is the impact?

People are not unused to changing trains, especially where the connection times are reasonable. All I'm talking about is stepping off a Voyager at BNS and walking the short distance along the platform to board an equivalent electric train departing very shortly afterwards.

O L Leigh

 

[ukrob]

So we stick our heads in the sand and do nothing in order to preserve pointless long distance through services between, say, Penzance and Newcastle. Very few people travel on these services end-to-end, so realistically what is the impact?

People are not unused to changing trains, especially where the connection times are reasonable. All I'm talking about is stepping off a Voyager at BNS and walking the short distance along the platform to board an equivalent electric train departing very shortly afterwards.

O L Leigh

I didn't say we stick our heads in the sand. I asked a question which you appear to have not responded to.

What I said stands - the general public do not like changing trains to get from A to B for two main reasons - perceived inconvenience, and risk of missing connections which is exactly what you are suggesting should be introduced. We want people to use rail, not stop using it.

I agree with what you are saying, and there is no easy fix. But making life that little bit more awkward for your core customer base is not a winning solution.

A hypothetical example - I live in Liverpool. Other than for work, I travel to London for leisure around once a month. If the direct service was split into two sections I simply wouldn't travel if I didn't have to.

 

[asylumxl]

In my opinion, while Bi-Mode is a short-sighted solution, due to the current Government and their desire to make endless cuts, this is the best we're going to get for quite a while.

 

[dave59]

So we stick our heads in the sand and do nothing in order to preserve pointless long distance through services between, say, Penzance and Newcastle. Very few people travel on these services end-to-end, so realistically what is the impact?

People are not unused to changing trains, especially where the connection times are reasonable. All I'm talking about is stepping off a Voyager at BNS and walking the short distance along the platform to board an equivalent electric train departing very shortly afterwards.

O L Leigh

Yes. Foster calls it the "sacred duty to preserve through running" and suggests better connecting services as a way forward. Why run HST's to Aberdeen and Inverness when good connections exist at Edinburgh? It's just the British way of doing things. Worse still we have ORR allowing the likes of GC and HT to provide DMU's to every little town off the ECML rather than insisting on more robust cross-platform connections with trunk services. People in this country still have a deep mistrust of the railways. They don't even trust their direct train to arrive on time never mind a connection. Leisure passengers also often appear to take their entire belongings with them on every trip. Not good unloading and reloading all that luggage. Point to point services with attractive fares are the way to fill trains. I would prefer an SBB type operation but UK culture seems to prevent it.

The DfT spent millions on the bi-mode IEP, a uniquely British solution. I disagree with the use of this type of train in the long term, but a much more economical retrofit to the existing 22x design would provide a sensible solution for XC/MML. There is no reason why a policy of in-fill electrification can't take place in parallel to this tied to procurement of new or cascaded EMU's.

 

[bangor-toad]

So we stick our heads in the sand and do nothing in order to preserve pointless long distance through services between, say, Penzance and Newcastle. Very few people travel on these services end-to-end, so realistically what is the impact?

People are not unused to changing trains, especially where the connection times are reasonable. All I'm talking about is stepping off a Voyager at BNS and walking the short distance along the platform to board an equivalent electric train departing very shortly afterwards.

O L Leigh

My view is that the through services are key to maintaining or increasing passenger numbers. Any requirement to change of trains will cause people to look at alternatives.

Here's my personal perspective:
I like train travel and if I'm by myself will look at how to be creative with the routing and types of traction.

If I've got the family with me it's completely different. I do not want to change at all. If I can find a through service then that's the one to go for. If not, the concept of driving comes most attractive.
Why?

Overcrowding / busy trains. If you change, you've got to find new seats. Reservations do help but this is an issue. Once you've settled in to the seat, most people would prefer to stay there until thier destination.

Time. A direct service is normally doesn't have major times where it waits (OK, some do!) so there is a feeling that if the train is moving, you're getting to the destination. If you change trains, you're waiting at the station and you feel as if it's time wasted. If the connection is more than a few minutes then that's how you can feel. Of course, too short a connection and that can be stressful...

Is the connection there? What happens if the first train is late? What happens if the second train is cancelled? Where do you wait? If you've got children it's far better to have them on the train than standing on a platform somewhere with nothing to do.
Question: Would any TOC hold a mainline train for late running suburban connection?

Changing. Places like Birmingham New Street are no fun to change at. I really don't like to drag the family through the crowds and search for the correct platform. If this is in the intineray, I'm driving instead.


I think that the concept of point to point trains will need to exist. Without it there won't be the passenger growth as people simply do not want to change trains. It doesn't matter that you explain it to them that it can be easy and simple, they just don't want to do it. Frankly I can appreciate why.


What to do about it is, of course, a difficult question...
Most users of the railway don't care if it's a D(E)MU, and diesel loco or and electic loco or if there are a team of panda's in a treadmill providing the power. (OK, that last one may cause comment). All they want to do is get from A to B. If a bi-mode offers that they'd prefer it to having to change trains. Unless swapping loco's about (diesel to electric and vice versa) is quick then people will complain about the time taken.
Remeber though, that's not an impossibilty; look at what SR used to do with the 33's, TC sets and the 4REP units.


Cheers,
Jason

 

[Geezertronic]

My cousin who works for XC said (a while ago) that he thinks the pantograph coach would be something VirginTrains would take up for their 221's and it would probably be a non starter for XC with their 220/221's. He did say it a while ago so things might have changed and I doubt VirginTrains will want to do anything unless they get a franchise renewal (isn't it part of their renewal bid?)

 

[Flying Snail]

I disagree.

The biggest user of bi-mode trains would be Arriva XC. I see little reason why they need to persist with long-distance through services when greater efficiencies could have been secured by breaking their routes into diesel and electric services with changes at certain key locations in order to facilitate this. This might be marginally less convenient for some of their passengers but it would reduce the extent to which diesel trains are run under the wires and, where electric traction could be substituted, maximised the efficiencies on offer.

But hasn't this exact situation already happened with the re-franchising of XC?

The XC franchise was stripped of the Glasgow/Edinburgh-North West-Birmingham arc and all through trains south of New Street from this quarter were lost. Despite this VWC still run these services with diesels despite them operating 100% under wires.

There is no logic or sanity to this especially as electric alternatives were available in the shape of 87/90+Mk3 sets AND the cascade of the 221s to XC would have lessened the DMU shortages in other areas.

It is shameful that routes such as Birmingham-Glasgow and Birmingham-Manchester that had been mainly electric since the 70's are now almost exclusively diesel hauled.

Until there is a system in place to financially penalise operators (or more appropriately DfT who are ultimately responsible) for running diesels on electrified lines this sort of stupidity will continue and the short to medium term financial benefits of electrification will remain weak.

 

[O L Leigh]

I accept that changing trains is far from ideal, which is why I'm such an ardent supporter of rail electrification. It won't be very much longer before efficiency of operation becomes a crucial factor, and few other systems of traction offer the same benefits as a straight electric train. Bi-mode is a basket case and won't encourage further electrification. Iin the context of an expanding electrified network the disadvantages of having to tote around the dead weight of the generator sets and fuel would make them increasingly inefficient when compared to conventional electric traction.

But then changing trains has always been a fact of life when travelling by train. I really can't remember the last rail journey I made that didn't require changing trains at least once or a transfer across London from one terminus to another. Breaking up long distance routes into shorter stages makes the service more resilient and less prone to cancellation and imported delays. If managed properly there should be no reason why connections are missed.

O L Leigh

 

[ukrob]

But then changing trains has always been a fact of life when travelling by train. I really can't remember the last rail journey I made that didn't require changing trains at least once or a transfer across London from one terminus to another. Breaking up long distance routes into shorter stages makes the service more resilient and less prone to cancellation and imported delays. If managed properly there should be no reason why connections are missed.

We all (I think) want electrification everywhere, but the statement I have put in bold shows that you are in a kind of dream world.

There are a thousand reasons why connections can be missed (and as a driver, you know it) - being 'managed properly' is only a tiny part of it. The fact remains that people do not want to change trains and many will not travel by train because of it.

I find it hard to believe that you can't remember the last time you made a journey that didn't involve changing trains (how about everyday at work as you are a driver), or a transfer across London - it is almost you are in denial that it would be a problem (although you have acknowledged that it is 'not ideal').

From previous posts I know that you drive EMUs out of a London terminus. How do you think your travellers would feel if the route was split into two and they had to change trains 20 miles out of London? It is just ludicrous, yet it is exactly what you are proposing elsewhere in the UK on routes which are not 100% electric.

 

[O L Leigh]

I really don't understand why you're getting so hot under the collar about this.

Yes, changing trains is less convenient than travelling direct, but there really are very, very few journeys where this is possible. Many of the passengers you see waiting on platforms at, say, Peterborough have stepped off feeder services and are now waiting for the big train to London or the North. Even those at London terminals are likely to have travelled in on a suburban service or on the tube. Even on the XC network it isn't always possible to get from one place to another without having to change somewhere.

O L Leigh

 

[LE Greys]

I can remember going to Cambridge when the wires stopped at Royston. Everyone got off the 317, trooped down the platform and got on a 101. I always thought it was great fun (you tend to when you're four years old) but I find a grand version of that a bit hard to envisage, especially if it involves a change of platform at somewhere like New Street. There's also the point that the pantograph coach would also allow XC to increase their seating capacity on every train. Virgin would probably end up using them as well for the Holyhead runs.

 

[dave59]

But hasn't this exact situation already happened with the re-franchising of XC?

The XC franchise was stripped of the Glasgow/Edinburgh-North West-Birmingham arc and all through trains south of New Street from this quarter were lost. Despite this VWC still run these services with diesels despite them operating 100% under wires.

There is no logic or sanity to this especially as electric alternatives were available in the shape of 87/90+Mk3 sets AND the cascade of the 221s to XC would have lessened the DMU shortages in other areas.

It is shameful that routes such as Birmingham-Glasgow and Birmingham-Manchester that had been mainly electric since the 70's are now almost exclusively diesel hauled.


Until there is a system in place to financially penalise operators (or more appropriately DfT who are ultimately responsible) for running diesels on electrified lines this sort of stupidity will continue and the short to medium term financial benefits of electrification will remain weak.

Couldn't agree more. The case for electrification is not improved by an industry and transport authority unwilling to use the existing network properly. Class 87/90 would have been ideal for Birmingham-Scotland capacity-wise although the idea was to utilise EPS running on this route, which the 221's do very well.

The DfT should procure the appropriate traction for the route and there should be no need to wait until the end of a franchise for progress to be made. 390's are the answer in this case and some shorter formations would no doubt have been ordered had the DfT been based in Birmingham.

 

[Geezertronic]

People mention loco hauled to replace the 221's between Birmingham and Scotland etc... but if such trains were used, how would the timing differences affect the pathing of trains up and down the North WCML? Surely you would loose paths as a result of the 221's being faster than the loco hauled services?

I use the FO "Pretendolino" as an example compared to the timing of a 390 doing the same journey

 

[Flying Snail]

People mention loco hauled to replace the 221's between Birmingham and Scotland etc... but if such trains were used, how would the timing differences affect the pathing of trains up and down the North WCML? Surely you would loose paths as a result of the 221's being faster than the loco hauled services?

I doubt it. Clearly there would be changes required as the LH set would by my estimation be about 30mns slower overall from BHM-GLC with the same stopping pattern.

However in contrast to the WCML south of Rugby where the fasts are almost exclusively used by EPS stock north of Weaver Junction the opposite is true.

There are currently 2-3 EPS per hour mixed in with various passenger and freights 60-100mph. I can't see how slightly slowing down one of the fasts is going to be that problematic in this case, I haven't heard of any issues caused by the TPE services using non-EPS 100mph DMUs.

I use the FO "Pretendolino" as an example compared to the timing of a 390 doing the same journey

Not a fair comparison as that service is held at a number of places and routed via the slows to allow other services to pass, I would estimate it has 20-30mns of slack over the entire journey. The non-stop 87/90+Mk3 used to do Euston-Preston non-stop in 2h20 in the late 90s, 390s do it in 2h08 with 2 stops.

 

[Lampshade]

The non-stop 87/90+Mk3 used to do Euston-Preston non-stop in 2h20 in the late 90s, 390s do it in 2h08 with 2 stops.

Nope, it's 2h08 non stop, 2h14 with stops at Wigan and Warrington

In fact that just shows how much money has been wasted. In ten years with a new fleet of trains and multi-bajillions being spent on infrastructure - we're 12 minutes faster from Preston to London hock:

 

[route:oxford]

I doubt it. Clearly there would be changes required as the LH set would by my estimation be about 30mns slower overall from BHM-GLC with the same stopping pattern.

An extra 30 minutes! That would be awful!

 

[222666]

Nah, a 92 & some mkIIIs? Back to the days of comfort!

 

[route:oxford]

Nah, a 92 & some mkIIIs? Back to the days of comfort!

Isn't their maximum speed under 90mph?

But if you...

Extend the wires between Reading & Coventry
Re-gear the 92s to 110mph
Build a batch of LHCS & DVT based on the 180 design

They would be good for a Scotland-South Coast via West Coast XC service.

 

[The Planner]

Waste of a 92, they should be pulling stupidly heavy freight.

 

[90019]

Isn't their maximum speed under 90mph?

87mph.

 

[87015]

87mph.

A load of EWS ones were cleared for 90 officially a few years back. Still totally wasted on passenger trains when there are 90s around, much I hate the damn things.

 

[LE Greys]

A load of EWS ones were cleared for 90 officially a few years back. Still totally wasted on passenger trains when there are 90s around, much I hate the damn things.

92s might make decent traction for the sleepers (they were supposed to haul Nightstars after all) but they really should not be on day trains unless there is absolutely no other alternative. Electric-hauled freight over the WCML would be a great improvement, and the ECML should be next. If the MML ever gets wired up as well (along with a few fill-ins) then we might finally see a Class 88 or Class 93 appearing as well.

Really, the only alternative to 221s on northern WCML fasts would be more Pendys. Spare 91s would be too slow on acceleration even if there were any, and spare 90s would max out at 110 even if they could keep up on acceleration. A new build of 89s is a bit impractical, but would make an interesting compromise. The great advantage, however, would be in the additional comfort of MkIIIs (perhaps re-gauged Irish ones - whatever happened to them ).

 

[voyagerdude220]

Nope, it's 2h08 non stop, 2h14 with stops at Wigan and Warrington

In fact that just shows how much money has been wasted. In ten years with a new fleet of trains and multi-bajillions being spent on infrastructure - we're 12 minutes faster from Preston to London hock:

I think Flying Snail is referring to the Pendolino runs away from London to Preston, whereas you maybe referring to the runs the other way- towards London from Preston.

 

[Geezertronic]

Not a fair comparison as that service is held at a number of places and routed via the slows to allow other services to pass, I would estimate it has 20-30mns of slack over the entire journey. The non-stop 87/90+Mk3 used to do Euston-Preston non-stop in 2h20 in the late 90s, 390s do it in 2h08 with 2 stops.

Nope, it's 2h08 non stop, 2h14 with stops at Wigan and Warrington

I think Flying Snail is referring to the Pendolino runs away from London to Preston, whereas you maybe referring to the runs the other way- towards London from Preston.

The quickest non stop Euston-Preston 390 I can find does the journey in 2hrs which is a 20 minute saving on the 87/90+Mk3 stock (timing based on the 1600hrs EUS-GLC) and the quickest Euston-Preston journey with stops at Warrington and Wigan I can find does the journey in 2hrs 8mins as already stated (timing based on the 1730hrs EUS-GLC)

The quickest non stop Preston-Euston 390 I can find does the journey in 2hrs 8mins (timing based on the 1553hrs departure from Preston) whereas the quickest Preston-Euston 390 which stops at Wigan and Warrington I can find does the jourmey in 2hrs 14mins (based on the 1458hrs departure from Preston)

 

[Royston Vasey]

The quickest non stop Euston-Preston 390 I can find does the journey in 2hrs which is a 20 minute saving on the 87/90+Mk3 stock (timing based on the 1600hrs EUS-GLC) and the quickest Euston-Preston journey with stops at Warrington and Wigan I can find does the journey in 2hrs 8mins as already stated (timing based on the 1730hrs EUS-GLC)

The quickest non stop Preston-Euston 390 I can find does the journey in 2hrs 8mins (timing based on the 1553hrs departure from Preston) whereas the quickest Preston-Euston 390 which stops at Wigan and Warrington I can find does the jourmey in 2hrs 14mins (based on the 1458hrs departure from Preston)

The difference there is probably mostly padding at the London end as the train terminates? Only used Pendos into Euston a handful of times but was ~5 early every time.

 

[voyagerdude220]

I'd certainly agree with the padding Royston Vasey, if given a clear run south of Warrington, a southbound Pendolino can do it in 1 hour 40 minutes, with the fastest i've known to be 1 hour 38 minutes- but very unlikely if you leave ontime, as you'd probably catch up with the xx55 Manchester to Euston at some stage.

The 16:30 Euston to Glasgow has sometimes been known to arrive into Preston at 18:26 when it's presumably had a pretty much unhindered run.

The 13:53/15:53 Preston to Euston (or 11:53/15:53 during Summer) both have a good few minutes slack/pathing inserted, unsurprising with the WCML being busy and also to keep VT happy with their 'performance'.

 

[TheWalrus]

Well, it's the same train type/family for 95% so I don't see why the Voyagers should be any different.

Doesn't this all sound a bit like a cheap solution for the Bi-Mode IEP?

Cheaper and better, it would have a lot more power than a bi-mode IEP, we just need to get the 22X units in the first place! I would recommend Ordering a load of electric trains to replace Brum-Scotland 221s, which will give you about 11 221s to play with

 

[route:oxford]

Perhaps...

Order 84 "221" coaches, 14 sets of MFLB-MSDL-SP-MSDL-MSL-MSL.

As each set is ready, take a 221 out of service for "refurbishment". Remove centre cars and set aside for now. Remove the diesel engines from driving cars, do a wee bit of rewiring and bring the passenger areas up to as-new standard. Reformat unit with new coaching set and existing driving cars and renumber to 391xxx.

At this stage, Virgin Trains will have fourteen 8 car 391s for operations under the wires, seven 5 car 221 and 39 "spare" coaches.

Time for stage one of refurbishment and reformatting...

Fourteen of the "spare" coaches can now be used to strengthen the seven Virgin 221s to 7 coaches. This leaves 25 "spare" coaches.

Time for stage two fo refurbishment and reformatting...

Twentyfour of the "spare" coaches can now be used to strengthen 12 XC 221s to 7 coaches.

The final spare coach can be used to strengthen 1 XC 221 to 5 coaches.

Sorted*.



*Except for the financing.