225s upgrade

[tbtc]

Has anybody been anti bi mode? Ive seen people anti IEP, and ive said bimode is rarely the answer. No anti bimode right across the board though.
Remember IEP is so much more than just 'a bimode'.

Also, there are certain situations where bimode wont work, and highspeed Intercity trains is one of them. The only reason people on the whole agree with the bimoding of voyagers, is because we already have the stupid DMUs in the first place.
As a newbuild, it shouldnt be happening. With IEP we have 900hp engines underneath the floors. We are carrying all that extra weight around for short non electrified sections. Thats on to of all the other problems associated with IEP as a whole. Namely the cost.

Plenty of enthusiasts seem to have a problem with bi-mode. What alternative do you have if you want to run London trains along that "short non electrified" line from Edinburgh to Inverness? Or Oxford to Hereford? (etc)

 

[LE Greys]

Plenty of enthusiasts seem to have a problem with bi-mode. What alternative do you have if you want to run London trains along that "short non electrified" line from Edinburgh to Inverness? Or Oxford to Hereford? (etc)

What works for goods doesn't necessarily work for passenger trains. When you're shifting 1,000 tons at 75 mph, the weight of a smallish diesel engine isn't exactly critical. It may even help matters by improving adhesion. However, the big V16 of the gen van idea, or a whole load of little engines with the distributed traction idea, is much more crucial with a 500-ton passenger train at 125 mph. Also, it's all in a single unit as opposed to being effectively a diesel loco without traction motors hooked to an EMU (with two conflicting maintenance regimes, remember what happened when HST power cars kept on having to have their set numbers repainted because of swaps?). Ultimately, the answer is to electrify the lot, but in the interim, it might be necessary to resort to dragging sets behind Class 68s with some form of compatible MU system. If the Southern could do it in the 1950s, surely it's workable in the 2010s.

 

[tbtc]

If the Southern could do it in the 1950s, surely it's workable in the 2010s.

They had a lot more capacity to play with though - I'd love to see locos coupling to/ detaching from trains at busy stations, but there's no room these days.

 

[junglejames]

Plenty of enthusiasts seem to have a problem with bi-mode. What alternative do you have if you want to run London trains along that "short non electrified" line from Edinburgh to Inverness? Or Oxford to Hereford? (etc)

Well lets see. You could stay true to the principles of proper Intercity travel. Ie no great big lumps vibrating underneath your feet. Ah yes. A diesel locomotive. You know, the industries prefered method.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They had a lot more capacity to play with though - I'd love to see locos coupling to/ detaching from trains at busy stations, but there's no room these days.

Of course. Thats why the rail industry prefers this method is it? Because they know its not possible. Also, where are the majority of loco swaps or attachments going to happen? Its virtually all going to be at Edinburgh. FGW wont be needing much in the way of diesel locos. Oxford to Hereford will be best off diesel all the way i expect.

Anyway, back to Edinburgh. Ive seen plenty of space and opportunities to do loco swaps. It wouldnt even delay you as trains further North sit there for nearly 10mins anyway.

When the DFT looked into this, they never mentioned lack of space. They mentioned cost and time. However both of their assumptions/ lies were just that. Lies. As has been proved since.

The best option without doubt is a diesel loco. Cheaper, and much more pleasant for the passengers.

 

[The Ham]

Well lets see. You could stay true to the principles of proper Intercity travel. Ie no great big lumps vibrating underneath your feet. Ah yes. A diesel locomotive. You know, the industries prefered method.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Of course. Thats why the rail industry prefers this method is it? Because they know its not possible. Also, where are the majority of loco swaps or attachments going to happen? Its virtually all going to be at Edinburgh. FGW wont be needing much in the way of diesel locos. Oxford to Hereford will be best off diesel all the way i expect.

Anyway, back to Edinburgh. Ive seen plenty of space and opportunities to do loco swaps. It wouldnt even delay you as trains further North sit there for nearly 10mins anyway.

When the DFT looked into this, they never mentioned lack of space. They mentioned cost and time. However both of their assumptions/ lies were just that. Lies. As has been proved since.

The best option without doubt is a diesel loco. Cheaper, and much more pleasant for the passengers.

The problem with switching Locos (over bi-model) is what do you do if you electrify the line to cover another service for a few mile up the line from a major station to a mostly unmanned station?

Also FGW are likely to need a lot of locos all over the place (Bristol, Oxford, Newbury and Swansea to name the ones I can think of off the top of my head). This is fine when the locos are all working fine, but where do you store the spare Locos in-case of problems. Linked to this is where do you maintain them, do you run them back to FGW's two depots or do you create new depots to minimise the miles travelled.

Whilst under bi-model (which will only need the engines when they are not under the wires, so less of a problem than a straight DMU) if a unit breaks down then its no different to any other MU. Likewise maintenance can still be undertaken at the normal depots without any additional vehicle movements.

 

[LE Greys]

The problem with switching Locos (over bi-model) is what do you do if you electrify the line to cover another service for a few mile up the line from a major station to a mostly unmanned station?

Also FGW are likely to need a lot of locos all over the place (Bristol, Oxford, Newbury and Swansea to name the ones I can think of off the top of my head). This is fine when the locos are all working fine, but where do you store the spare Locos in-case of problems. Linked to this is where do you maintain them, do you run them back to FGW's two depots or do you create new depots to minimise the miles travelled.

Whilst under bi-model (which will only need the engines when they are not under the wires, so less of a problem than a straight DMU) if a unit breaks down then its no different to any other MU. Likewise maintenance can still be undertaken at the normal depots without any additional vehicle movements.

This is balanced by a few things. Firstly, you would presumably still have the usual 'Thunderbird' locos dotted around the network. It would be useful if they could do something else in the interim (hauling parcels for instance) but unfortunately that is impossible with the current railway system. So, that's at least one way we can get away with locos sitting around doing nothing all day.

With FGW, I'd tear up the entire plan. Retain 180s for the Cotswold Line, wire all the way to Swansea, with locos running down from Landore to haul trains onwards (it's useful that they can couple to the rear there). The loco would spend the rest of the day as Swansea Thunderbird. Similar at Bristol, although this would only be an intermediate stage before electrification to Exeter, Plymouth and finally Penzance (plus filling in Cogload Junction-Newbury). The Cotswold would receive wires eventually as well.

With EC, the obvious place to store the locos would be the former east bays at Waverley, although in the future, they ought to think about moving on to Dundee and Perth as lines around Fife are electrified. They could then operate in a common pool with those used on the sleeper, with a convenient run to Craigentinny that does not involve running through the station.

I'm assuming full push-pull operation and autocouplers are in use. It would be especially convenient if an EMU could run directly into an occupied platform and couple to the loco on arrival, but I don't think this is allowed when carrying passengers.

 

[starrymarkb]

I'm assuming full push-pull operation and autocouplers are in use. It would be especially convenient if an EMU could run directly into an occupied platform and couple to the loco on arrival, but I don't think this is allowed when carrying passengers.

Oh it happens with units all the time at Salisbury and various other places on the southern that portion work so I can't see that being a problem

 

[LE Greys]

Oh it happens with units all the time at Salisbury and various other places on the southern that portion work so I can't see that being a problem

So much the better! Now, you only need one platform and a bay that's OOU most of the time.

 

[ash39]

So, anyone know what's happening with 114 then? All I know is it was supposedly dragged from Doncaster to Neville Hill by 91125, and then worked Leeds to London with 91103 (unclear which loco, or if both, were powering). That was on Friday.

Hopefully it's out tomorrow, if anyone has any gen please post!

 

[tbtc]

Well lets see. You could stay true to the principles of proper Intercity travel. Ie no great big lumps vibrating underneath your feet. Ah yes. A diesel locomotive. You know, the industries prefered method

Ah, the "principles"... as if there are tablets of stone that we need to obey to run a long distance train?

back to Edinburgh. Ive seen plenty of space and opportunities to do loco swaps. It wouldnt even delay you as trains further North sit there for nearly 10mins anyway.

When the DFT looked into this, they never mentioned lack of space. They mentioned cost and time. However both of their assumptions/ lies were just that. Lies. As has been proved since

Yes, the DfT are clearly part of a big conspiracy - well done for seeing through this.

 

[junglejames]

The problem with switching Locos (over bi-model) is what do you do if you electrify the line to cover another service for a few mile up the line from a major station to a mostly unmanned station?

Eh, you still do the loco swap at the major station. It isnt illegal to operate diesel under the wires.

Also FGW are likely to need a lot of locos all over the place (Bristol, Oxford, Newbury and Swansea to name the ones I can think of off the top of my head). This is fine when the locos are all working fine, but where do you store the spare Locos in-case of problems. Linked to this is where do you maintain them, do you run them back to FGW's two depots or do you create new depots to minimise the miles travelled.

FGW dont need many at all. Plymouth and Penzance trains will all be HSTs still, as is the current plan. You dont play about unnecessarily when the only electrified section is London to Newbury. Very few go via Bristol, so not a problem there. If you want to retain the ones via Bristol, then you have a couple of HSTs per day going a bit further under the wires. Probably easier to send these via Newbury though.
Swansea needs a couple if you want to keep the Carmarthens. Bristol needs a couple if you want to keep the Weston Super Mares.
Oxford doesnt need any. All trains going North of Oxford will be DMUs throughout from London. Either 180s or 166s.
Where do you maintain the locos? Well lets see. Penzance has a depot, as does Plymouth, Bristol, Swansea, Exeter, London, to name but 6. Swansea and Bristol being about the only depots that will see the locos.
Remember, you will need diesel locos for the sleepers anyway. So a handful extra for daytime services is hardly going to be an inconvenience to anyone.
Likewise, these diesel locos wont need special depots to be built, unlike IEP. So thats even more money saved, and staff can stop worrying about their jobs as well.

Whilst under bi-model (which will only need the engines when they are not under the wires, so less of a problem than a straight DMU) if a unit breaks down then its no different to any other MU. Likewise maintenance can still be undertaken at the normal depots without any additional vehicle movements.

As mentioned, no extra miles will be required for the diesel locos. FGW have depots all over the place. However, the IEP bi modes will be having different depots built, and only about 2 or 3 of them. So maintenance cannot be undertaken at the normal depots. Looks like your argument is the wrong way round.

The diesel locos will also hardly venture away from the unelectrified lines. So no difference to IEP. On top of that, you dont need to drag around excess weight when under the wires, and you will use less fuel when not under the wires. Maintenance will be cheaper as well with the diesel locos. Plus just one final one. Where do fitters prefer their diesel engines? Above the solebar.

As for EC. The diesel locos would be based at Craigentinny, with some overnighting at Inverness and Aberdeen. All three of which can do maintenance on the locos, and have refuelling points. Plus they are all used to diesel locos. Inverness and Aberdeen seeing the sleeper stock everyday.


Sorry, cannot see where your extra miles are coming from.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah, the "principles"... as if there are tablets of stone that we need to obey to run a long distance train?

Hey why dont we just run pacers everywhere? There is no harm in having suitable trains. Especially when the suitable trains are also cheaper to run and maintain, and are the railways prefered option.

Yes, the DfT are clearly part of a big conspiracy - well done for seeing through this.

Not my fault if they lie. They have been found wanting numerous times over this whole episode.

 

[tbtc]

All trains going North of Oxford will be DMUs throughout from London. Either 180s or 166s

So instead of bi-mode IEP on the London - Worcester/ Hereford services (which would obviously run on electricity from Paddington to Oxford) you want the entire journey to be a DMU with "great big lumps vibrating underneath your feet"?

 

[junglejames]

So instead of bi-mode IEP on the London - Worcester/ Hereford services (which would obviously run on electricity from Paddington to Oxford) you want the entire journey to be a DMU with "great big lumps vibrating underneath your feet"?

Well its hardly worth an expensive fleet of IEPs just for the few trains heading north of Oxford, and the stop start nature of the Cotswold Line is probably more suited to multiple units.
I would have suggested a small fleet of 222s with a panto-car added. But I was expecting you to mix up bimodal 222s and IEP.

DMUs are often required. I dont have a problem with DMUs. But for virtually everything we are getting IEP for, they are not required. Hence one of the reasons for not having Bimodes with 900hp engines underneath.

 

[sprinterguy]

Well its hardly worth an expensive fleet of IEPs just for the few trains heading north of Oxford, and the stop start nature of the Cotswold Line is probably more suited to multiple units.

The IEP trains are multiple units.

 

[Manchester77]

So you pair 110mph locos with 125/ 140mph coaches, and put them on a 100/ 110mph railway. At the same time you pair 125/ 140mph locos and chuck them onto a 100mph sleeper?
.

Iirc the original plan was to have the 91s as sleepers during the night which is a reason why we got the flat end...

 

[mr_jrt]

So instead of bi-mode IEP on the London - Worcester/ Hereford services (which would obviously run on electricity from Paddington to Oxford) you want the entire journey to be a DMU with "great big lumps vibrating underneath your feet"?

I was with junglejames on most of that aside from Oxford...

Personally, I'd propose either a break of service at Oxford with DMU providing service to Worcester/Hertford...or as we've suggested elsewhere, a diesel loco attaching. Oxford's hopefully getting a rebuild in the near future, so any additional facilities needed could easily be factored into that. There's plenty of railway land dotted around the station and the lines around it...

 

[tbtc]

Well its hardly worth an expensive fleet of IEPs just for the few trains heading north of Oxford, and the stop start nature of the Cotswold Line is probably more suited to multiple units.
I would have suggested a small fleet of 222s with a panto-car added. But I was expecting you to mix up bimodal 222s and IEP.

DMUs are often required. I dont have a problem with DMUs. But for virtually everything we are getting IEP for, they are not required. Hence one of the reasons for not having Bimodes with 900hp engines underneath.

Fair enough if you'd rather have great big lumps vibrating underneath your feet all the way from London to Worcester/ Hereford (compared to just west of Oxford if you had bi-mode IEP).

Am sure a 166 would be great to remain on the fast Oxford services...

 

[junglejames]

The IEP trains are multiple units.

I know. My point was, as it is more suited to MU operation, the loco hauled operation wasnt much use.
So we are left with some other frm of MU. DMU, or a 222 with panto car
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Fair enough if you'd rather have great big lumps vibrating underneath your feet all the way from London to Worcester/ Hereford (compared to just west of Oxford if you had bi-mode IEP).

Am sure a 166 would be great to remain on the fast Oxford services...

Well actually yes i would, because it would mean we have saved loads of money, and saved other parts of the network from rediculous trains.

You have taken one journey where a bimode would possibly be a good option, and used it as a reason for getting IEP. Crikey, its not even perfect for IEP. Its only perfect for a bimode.
Its like me saying class 60s would be perfect for the entire railway operation because I can think of a couple of runs which they are just right for, therefore we should buy a massive fleet of 60s.
In the mean time wasting loads of money, and ruining the entire railway operation.
Or me saying the last mile TRAXX would be good for freight operators, and so going out to buy a fleet of 73s for them. Because they both happen to be EDs:roll:
There are cheaper and simpler solutions to IEP, considering we only have 1 route which bimode MUs are perfect for. A bimodal 222 being one of them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was with junglejames on most of that aside from Oxford...

Personally, I'd propose either a break of service at Oxford with DMU providing service to Worcester/Hertford...or as we've suggested elsewhere, a diesel loco attaching. Oxford's hopefully getting a rebuild in the near future, so any additional facilities needed could easily be factored into that. There's plenty of railway land dotted around the station and the lines around it...

Thinking again. A high powered loco may be able to handle the stop start nature of the line without slowing the timings down. It wouldnt really be overkill either, as a 180 already has 3750hp on tap.
Such a loco geared for 100mph could do the trick just nicely.
So could possibly work.

 

[HSTEd]

A locomotive has at most 70t on driven axles.

A Voyager has 22t on driven axles per vehicle and will be considerably lighter.

You can't hope to win in tractive effort terms.

 

[TGV]

A locomotive has at most 70t on driven axles.

A Voyager has 22t on driven axles per vehicle and will be considerably lighter.

You can't hope to win in tractive effort terms.

Something in there doesn't sit quite right, but it could be me misunderstanding the text... You're saying a voyager has 22t per driven axle, or are you saying that because only two axles per vehicle are driven that each vehicle has 22t of load on driven axles - i.e. 11t axle loads? 22t per driven axle implies a vehicle mass of 88t which seems way too much for a DMU, so I think I see what you're getting at.

Something like a 91 which is 80ish tons which gives approx 20t per powered wheelset. By comparison TGVs are 17t per powered wheelset and a 350t 8-vehicle Reseau set has 8 driven axles. Oh and 12,000hp which helps too.

 

[LE Greys]

Actually, I've always thought the 180s were perfect for this route, which is a bit of everything. It's a bit country branch line, a bit inter-city and a bit suburban, so the 180s slotted neatly into the gap between HSTs and 166s. The problem was their lack of reliability.

Something in there doesn't sit quite right, but it could be me misunderstanding the text... You're saying a voyager has 22t per driven axle, or are you saying that because only two axles per vehicle are driven that each vehicle has 22t of load on driven axles - i.e. 11t axle loads? 22t per driven axle implies a vehicle mass of 88t which seems way too much for a DMU, so I think I see what you're getting at.

Something like a 91 which is 80ish tons which gives approx 20t per powered wheelset. By comparison TGVs are 17t per powered wheelset and a 350t 8-vehicle Reseau set has 8 driven axles. Oh and 12,000hp which helps too.

I think he's talking about adhesion weight per vehicle, in the same way that a J15 has its entire weight available for adhesion, because it's an 0-6-0, so all wheels are powered. An A4 has only 50% available, because half is taken by the un-powered wheels. IIRC, Voyagers weigh about 44 tons per vehicle.

 

[TGV]

I think he's talking about adhesion weight per vehicle, in the same way that a J15 has its entire weight available for adhesion, because it's an 0-6-0, so all wheels are powered. An A4 has only 50% available, because half is taken by the un-powered wheels. IIRC, Voyagers weigh about 44 tons per vehicle.

Gotcha. Yes, having re-read it, I think the term missing in my head was adhesive weight.

 

[junglejames]

A locomotive has at most 70t on driven axles.

A Voyager has 22t on driven axles per vehicle and will be considerably lighter.

You can't hope to win in tractive effort terms.

What? To come up with your 22t for voyagers, you must surely come up with the same figure for locomotives. A 120 tonne CoCo is 20t per powered axle. A 90 tonne BoBo is 22.5t per powered axle.
Weight wise will depend on the same. It wont take too many coaches for LHCS to weigh less than a voyager.
I also see you havent taken the 100mph gearing into account for the loco?

Anyway. That matters not at all. The performance will depend on how many coaches are dragged around. Put just a couple of coaches on the back, and your voyager will look very slow.
But still this matters not. A voyager is overpowered. We dont need such power per vehicle. All it does is use up our resources a lot quicker.
I dont need to beat a voyagers performance. That is not my aim. My aim is to have acceptable performance.
If I can get somewhere between a 166 and a 180, then that should do the trick.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A locomotive has at most 70t on driven axles.

A Voyager has 22t on driven axles per vehicle and will be considerably lighter.

You can't hope to win in tractive effort terms.

What? To come up with your 22t for voyagers, you must surely come up with the same figure for locomotives. A 120 tonne CoCo is 20t per powered axle. A 90 tonne BoBo is 22.5t per powered axle.
Weight wise will depend on the same. It wont take too many coaches for LHCS to weigh less than a voyager.
I also see you havent taken the 100mph gearing into account for the loco?

Anyway. That matters not at all. The performance will depend on how many coaches are dragged around. Put just a couple of coaches on the back, and your voyager will look very slow.
But still this matters not. A voyager is overpowered. We dont need such power per vehicle. All it does is use up our resources a lot quicker.
I dont need to beat a voyagers performance. That is not my aim. My aim is to have acceptable performance.
If I can get somewhere between a 166 and a 180, then that should do the trick.

 

[The Ham]

Where do you maintain the locos? Well lets see. Penzance has a depot, as does Plymouth, Bristol, Swansea, Exeter, London, to name but 6. Swansea and Bristol being about the only depots that will see the locos.
Remember, you will need diesel locos for the sleepers anyway. So a handful extra for daytime services is hardly going to be an inconvenience to anyone.
Likewise, these diesel locos wont need special depots to be built, unlike IEP. So thats even more money saved, and staff can stop worrying about their jobs as well.

As mentioned, no extra miles will be required for the diesel locos. FGW have depots all over the place. However, the IEP bi modes will be having different depots built, and only about 2 or 3 of them. So maintenance cannot be undertaken at the normal depots. Looks like your argument is the wrong way round.

First Great Western has three major depots:

Old Oak Common TMD, near Paddington (IEP depot proposed in west London)
Laira TMD in Plymouth
St Philip's Marsh T&RSMD, near Bristol Temple Meads (IEP depot proposed in Bristol)

There are smaller carriage cleaning depots at Penzance, Landore and Exeter and sidings for empty stock with minimal facilities elsewhere.

Therefore for the locos to be maintained they have to go to one of the three major depots. Which means if you are running locos somewhere other than Bristol or Plymouth then when the loco needs maintenance it will need to run to one of these three depots. OK some minor stuff could be undertaken at the more minor depots, but there will be times when they will need to go to one of the three major ones.

With the IC125's, IC225's or any loco which is semi permanently connected to carriages that's not a problem you just timetable them to finish near the depot on the day that they need to go to the maintenance depot, but that is unlikely to be an option for a loco which is dragging an EMU off the wires. Resulting in extra mileage being undertaken.

IEP will have the same set-up as at present, there will be three maintenance depots and then a whole load of sidings where minor day to day work (things like toilet tank emptying, water topping up, fuel filling up, etc) can be undertaken.

 

[HSTEd]

Aren't we looking at 125mph commuter services on the Great Western with the upgrade?
Since between Maidenhead and Paddington it will effectively be a two track railway which means we want the most uniform performance characteristics possible.

As slowing down the InterCity services is not really an option then we need to speed up the commuters.

A four coach Voyager has 3000hp and weighs in at approximately 172 tonnes, with 86t on powered axles.

A loco hauled formation with 4 coaches (one being 125mph driving trailer so similar capacity) will have approximately 70t on driven axles and will weigh in at approximately 205t (at the minimum, in reality you won't get 35t trailers these days, especially not 125mph rated ones).

The amount of horsepower the loco has is irrelevant to its weight because it must be able to generate sufficient tractive effort to move things, which is why Type 1s and 2s have such low power to weight ratios.

You have a train with 120% the weight and 81% of the tractive effort.

As to fuel consumption, you could just isolate one of the Voyagers three engines and run it with 2250hp.

 

[junglejames]

Aren't we looking at 125mph commuter services on the Great Western with the upgrade?
Since between Maidenhead and Paddington it will effectively be a two track railway which means we want the most uniform performance characteristics possible.

As slowing down the InterCity services is not really an option then we need to speed up the commuters.

A four coach Voyager has 3000hp and weighs in at approximately 172 tonnes, with 86t on powered axles.

A loco hauled formation with 4 coaches (one being 125mph driving trailer so similar capacity) will have approximately 70t on driven axles and will weigh in at approximately 205t (at the minimum, in reality you won't get 35t trailers these days, especially not 125mph rated ones).

The amount of horsepower the loco has is irrelevant to its weight because it must be able to generate sufficient tractive effort to move things, which is why Type 1s and 2s have such low power to weight ratios.

You have a train with 120% the weight and 81% of the tractive effort.

As to fuel consumption, you could just isolate one of the Voyagers three engines and run it with 2250hp.

1- Im not running the diesel all the way from Pad. Therefore my diesel is still geared for 100mph. Not 125mph. Again, not taken into account.
2- You still keep arguing over all these details. Im not trying to out accelerate a voyager. If I was trying to out accelerate a voyager then i would, but im not trying to. Plus keep on about weight on driven axles all you like. A loco can out perform a voyager if necessary. Just depends on available horses, and number of coaches its dragging. But as i keep saying. I dont want to out perform a voyager.
If you keep on about out performing voyagers, then I will suggest scrapping all the wires, and building a fleet of HSTs with 20 cylinder VP185s. Each producing 4000 horses. 8 coaches with 4000 horses in front, and 4000 horses shoving them from the rear.
3- You will actually notice that my prefered options for the Cotswold Line dont involve locos.
4- So commuter services must be 125mph? Better tell that to FGW. Dont think 125mph units are being proposed somehow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

First Great Western has three major depots:

Old Oak Common TMD, near Paddington (IEP depot proposed in west London)
Laira TMD in Plymouth
St Philip's Marsh T&RSMD, near Bristol Temple Meads (IEP depot proposed in Bristol)

There are smaller carriage cleaning depots at Penzance, Landore and Exeter and sidings for empty stock with minimal facilities elsewhere.

Therefore for the locos to be maintained they have to go to one of the three major depots. Which means if you are running locos somewhere other than Bristol or Plymouth then when the loco needs maintenance it will need to run to one of these three depots. OK some minor stuff could be undertaken at the more minor depots, but there will be times when they will need to go to one of the three major ones.

With the IC125's, IC225's or any loco which is semi permanently connected to carriages that's not a problem you just timetable them to finish near the depot on the day that they need to go to the maintenance depot, but that is unlikely to be an option for a loco which is dragging an EMU off the wires. Resulting in extra mileage being undertaken.

IEP will have the same set-up as at present, there will be three maintenance depots and then a whole load of sidings where minor day to day work (things like toilet tank emptying, water topping up, fuel filling up, etc) can be undertaken.

You are acting as if the locos will be running out of a station in the middle of nowhere. I dont intend to have them sitting around Newquay or Looe. They will be based at Bristol and Swansea. Oh, wait a minute, isnt Bristol one of the major depots you just mentioned? Thought so. Isnt it also a depot that already exists? Unlike IEPs depots which have to be built from scratch just to add to the cost.
So you are worried about a little bit of non existent diesel under the wires when heading to and from depots, but you arent concerned about the brand new depots that need to be built, and the leasing costs which are twice as much as a pendy?
OK, makes sense.

 

[captainbigun]

What angle of attack are they set at? The orientation of the aeros shouldn't be a problem in itself - they operate in both directions already. Effectively it would be like turning the loco around and the pan isn't a limiting factor there. Like you said, the only effect likeley is some interaction with the modified roof.

10º as opposed to 8º on all other locos. Units (ex 390s) with the high speed are 4º.

 

[jimm]

Oxford to Hereford will be best off diesel all the way i expect.

Anyway, back to Edinburgh. Ive seen plenty of space and opportunities to do loco swaps. It wouldnt even delay you as trains further North sit there for nearly 10mins anyway.

When the DFT looked into this, they never mentioned lack of space. They mentioned cost and time. However both of their assumptions/ lies were just that. Lies. As has been proved since.

The best option without doubt is a diesel loco. Cheaper, and much more pleasant for the passengers.

In which case why bother electrifying London to Oxford at all? Cotswold Line expresses are getting on for half of the fast service between those two points. Think how much money that would save...

This is balanced by a few things. Firstly, you would presumably still have the usual 'Thunderbird' locos dotted around the network. It would be useful if they could do something else in the interim (hauling parcels for instance) but unfortunately that is impossible with the current railway system. So, that's at least one way we can get away with locos sitting around doing nothing all day.

With FGW, I'd tear up the entire plan. Retain 180s for the Cotswold Line, wire all the way to Swansea, with locos running down from Landore to haul trains onwards (it's useful that they can couple to the rear there). The loco would spend the rest of the day as Swansea Thunderbird. Similar at Bristol, although this would only be an intermediate stage before electrification to Exeter, Plymouth and finally Penzance (plus filling in Cogload Junction-Newbury). The Cotswold would receive wires eventually as well.

What Thunderbird locos? THE GW IEP plan involves all trains having some sort of diesel - even if it is just a shunting/'get out of trouble' one on the electric sets. Retain 180s for the Cotswold Line? Fine off-peak and contra-peak but not much use when morning peak HSTs arrive off the Cotswold Line at Oxford loaded with 500 passengers and the same applies the other way late afternoon and early evening.

FGW dont need many at all. Plymouth and Penzance trains will all be HSTs still, as is the current plan. You dont play about unnecessarily when the only electrified section is London to Newbury. Very few go via Bristol, so not a problem there. If you want to retain the ones via Bristol, then you have a couple of HSTs per day going a bit further under the wires. Probably easier to send these via Newbury though.
Swansea needs a couple if you want to keep the Carmarthens. Bristol needs a couple if you want to keep the Weston Super Mares.
Oxford doesnt need any. All trains going North of Oxford will be DMUs throughout from London. Either 180s or 166s.

Before you start advocating how to run the Cotswold Line, please do those of us who use it the courtesy of finding out about the services that are operating there now. As I note above you need a train with 500 or more seats in the peak. The only 165/6 workings left on weekdays are three off-peak trains that turn round at Moreton-in-Marsh - unless a 180 breaks again - and the morning halts train to Oxford and its westbound early run from Moreton.

So if there is no bi-mode IEP then you need something else for the Cotswold Line - and to Gloucester/Cheltenham, which is meant to go hourly with IEP. Keep more HSTs? Probably makes the case for electrification less attractive if you do. So use diesels dragging electric IEPs? That's a lot of loco for short off-peak trains. And if you care to sit down and work out how many locos will be needed to deal with hourly - or twice-hourly in the peak - trains starting/turning round at Moreton-in-Marsh, or Worcester, or Great Malvern, or Hereford across the course of the day, that's also a lot of locos and a lot of locos a long way from any FGW depot - unless you think dozens of miles of light engine running is efficient. Certainly not your

"a handful extra"

and

"no extra miles will be required for the diesel locos"

.

Well its hardly worth an expensive fleet of IEPs just for the few trains heading north of Oxford

Again, look at the timetable first - since when have 20 trains each way daily between Oxford and Moreton-in-Marsh been "a few"?

Personally, I'd propose either a break of service at Oxford with DMU providing service to Worcester/Hertford...or as we've suggested elsewhere, a diesel loco attaching. Oxford's hopefully getting a rebuild in the near future, so any additional facilities needed could easily be factored into that. There's plenty of railway land dotted around the station and the lines around it...

Clearly you don't know the route. Otherwise you wouldn't write something quite so silly. From the early 1980s until 1993 most of the day you had to change at Oxford. Once the 166s and day-round through running arrived passenger numbers and fares revenue on the line rose by 25-30 per cent in just six months and have kept rising pretty much ever since. If you want to chuck all that away, then dmus only running west of Oxford are a fine idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbtc
Fair enough if you'd rather have great big lumps vibrating underneath your feet all the way from London to Worcester/ Hereford (compared to just west of Oxford if you had bi-mode IEP).

Am sure a 166 would be great to remain on the fast Oxford services...

Well actually yes i would, because it would mean we have saved loads of money, and saved other parts of the network from rediculous trains.

And what about the Oxford-London fasts and peak Cotswold Line trains, where use of 166s has been pretty ridiculous for many years now, as the growth in traffic has far outstripped their capabilities - and they're not very good at keeping up with/out of the way of things doing 125mph - so a fat lot of use on a two-track 125mph line post-Crossrail - and this is one of your

"preferred options"

?

Thinking again. A high powered loco may be able to handle the stop start nature of the line without slowing the timings down. It wouldnt really be overkill either, as a 180 already has 3750hp on tap.
Such a loco geared for 100mph could do the trick just nicely.
So could possibly work.

But no-one is actually building such a machine. Unless Vossloh can be persuade to stick a very big MTU in a Eurolight and you keep everything crossed. The Caterpillar engine for the DRS locos has never been subjected to a duty cycle like that required for HSTs - only the Valenta/VP185 and MTU can handle it.

 

[tbtc]

1- Im not running the diesel all the way from Pad

...but...

All trains going North of Oxford will be DMUs throughout from London. Either 180s or 166s

...so are you wanting 100mph 166s on the two line section at <s>Maidstone</s> Maidenhead (which will drag everything else on the GWML down to that speed to accomodate them)?

Or are diesels not running all the way to Paddington?

I'm confused.

 

[JamesRowden]

...so are you wanting 100mph 166s on the two line section at Maidstone (which will drag everything else on the GWML down to that speed to accomodate them)?

Or are diesels not running all the way to Paddington?

I'm confused.

You mean Maidenhead, not Maidstone (James May made the same mistake in Top Gear).

According to the DfT (according to the rail campaign group in Bedwyn) Turbos will not be allowed between Reading and Paddington after the upgrade. However, there will be the Plymouth HSTs and probably 100/110 mph Thames Valley EMUs on the fast lines.