225s upgrade

[The Ham]

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.

Although Bristol has a depot, the locos from Swansea will still have to run under the wires.

Bi-model will also cater for the trains to Cheltenham & Gloucester which you appear to have missed, which means more locos at Swindon under your proposal.

Assuming that the line to Westbury gets electrified then once the IC125's are replaced if they are not replaced by bi-model trains then all the Plymouth and Cornish services would have to call at Westbury (which some do not call at). If the electrification only stops at Newbury then all the services will have to call there (which very few of them call at). All of which means more under the wire running to get to a depot. it also means a fair number of locos as the run to Cornwall and back from Westbury takes 4 hours 20 minutes each way, so basicly 9 hours (10.5 hours from Newbury) before the loco is back and ready to run again. Unless you are proposing that it would be loco hauled from Reading (to avoid stopping at the end of the wires) which would require more locos.

Then of course what do you do with the locos when a service no longer needs them? More worrying what happens when there is no need for any intercity services to be hauled by loco and there a load of 15 years old locos sat idle?

Bi-model then allows for future changes to the network (for instance what would happen if electrification was done from London to Westbury and then from Exeter to Plymouth) without needing to change where the locos are based whilst maximising the use of electric traction.

Although there are going to be new depots I would have thought that they will be mostly upgrades to what is already there to cope with the new type of train. However this would be the case with any new stock, even if it was a class of train that already exists on the UK network but does not run on the GWML.

 

[tbtc]

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.

Yeah, apologies

Interesting about Turbos not being allowed along to Paddington - can't imagine the place without them! That does suggest some changes for the Bedwyn service - either run by bi-mode IEPs or cut back to Reading - Bedwyn?

 

[jimm]

...but...



...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.

The top speed of GW 165 and 166 sets is 90mph, not 100mph.

And what junglejames means is the mythical diesel locomotives would not run all the way to Paddington but apparently that would be fine for dmus that are:

a. Too slow in the case of the 16x sets (and really not suitable for journeys as long as those to Worcestershire and beyond)
b. Are too small to handle peak-hour Cotswold Line loads in the case of the 180s - and still in need of a proper mechanical rebuild to cure the faults that have dogged them since they were built.

 

[mr_jrt]

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.

I think you've made the mistake of attributing general modal growth to a specific change:

...besides, if the interchange is timetabled correctly then it's a non-issue. Even more so if the EMU starts from Oxford so the seats will be sitting there waiting when the DMU pulls in. Ideally the rebuild would provide for cross-platform interchange, but there you go.

 

[The Ham]

I think you've made the mistake of attributing general modal growth to a specific change:

...besides, if the interchange is timetabled correctly then it's a non-issue. Even more so if the EMU starts from Oxford so the seats will be sitting there waiting when the DMU pulls in. Ideally the rebuild would provide for cross-platform interchange, but there you go.

Given that there are now (2010/11) just over million people a year joining the line between Hanborough and Pershore (a rise of 15% since 2002/2003) that would result in a fair few people changing trains. Which wouldn't go down that well.

Its one thing if you are likely to be only looking at 40 or 50 people per train in the peak hours, but you are likely to be looking at a lot more than that.

1,050,000 people over 313 days is 3354 people a day from the above stations (OK that doesn't include Sundays but assumes Saturdays are as heavily loaded as weekdays) even allowing 75% of these people travelling in the peak hours or not through Oxford, that is still over 40 people in the off peaks without including people travelling from further afield.

If, when IEP comes along, the frequency increases to two per hour through the day then expect passenger numbers to be much higher come 2018, probably more than another 15% growth.

All in all an unlikely candidate for split journeys.

 

[LE Greys]

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...

Not a lot, since you'd still need to maintain a small pool of 166s for the slows. Just keeping the extra spares would eat into the savings.

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.

Firstly, I'd not heard that, but it sounds like a silly idea. Imagine a non-traction-but-can't-move fault (a major electrical failure for instance). Are they suddenly going to dump a ballast train in the middle of nowhere and collect the stuck express.

Secondly, you obviously double them up in the peaks. Presumably, the second half could work fill-in turns to Westbury or Exeter when off-peak. I'd envisage all the 180s coming back from HT and GC to do this, those would work far better as EDMU routes, since they're about 80% under wires.

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 and .

Please see above, a 180+180 formation in the peaks, running as single units off-peak.

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 ?

Now that I agree with! Not just because I've been bowled by a Turbo more times than I care to remember. The idea of running high-density suburban units on such a long journey was flawed from the start. So was the idea of 90 mph units operating on 125 mph fast lines. I was delighted when FGW sorted out this scourge of sectorisation.

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.

That doesn't mean it can't do it, of course, only that it hasn't been tried yet. However, I don't think it's a good idea to find out.

 

[jimm]

I think you've made the mistake of attributing general modal growth to a specific change:

...besides, if the interchange is timetabled correctly then it's a non-issue. Even more so if the EMU starts from Oxford so the seats will be sitting there waiting when the DMU pulls in. Ideally the rebuild would provide for cross-platform interchange, but there you go.

The rapid increase in traffic and revenue over those few months in 1993 happened, whether or not it fits in with your theories - and its connection with the introduction of all-day through running to and from London that May is stark staring obvious. Since then growth on the route has been in line with the general trend but it got a clear and obvious kick-start over that period.

If the train starts from Hereford, or Malvern, or Worcester or Moreton-in-Marsh then the seats will be there for the people boarding there. If the emu starts from Oxford, it will already be full of people who have got on board at Oxford. You clearly know nothing about the Cotswold Line and the way it is used, with high volumes of travel from places west of Oxford to places east of Oxford all day.

Not a lot, since you'd still need to maintain a small pool of 166s for the slows. Just keeping the extra spares would eat into the savings.

I was being ever so slightly sarcastic about not electrifying to Oxford.

Firstly, I'd not heard that, but it sounds like a silly idea. Imagine a non-traction-but-can't-move fault (a major electrical failure for instance). Are they suddenly going to dump a ballast train in the middle of nowhere and collect the stuck express.

Silly or not, it is a fact that all IEPs will have a diesel engine - precisely as a result of DfT getting twitchy about trains being stranded for hours without power on the East Coast when the wires come down.

Secondly, you obviously double them up in the peaks. Presumably, the second half could work fill-in turns to Westbury or Exeter when off-peak. I'd envisage all the 180s coming back from HT and GC to do this, those would work far better as EDMU routes, since they're about 80% under wires.

Please see above, a 180+180 formation in the peaks, running as single units off-peak.

Obviously...? if the point of the exercise is to not build bi-mode IEPs in large numbers for GW services, then how does it suddenly become cost-effective to build a handful of some sort of bi-mode for HT and GC, if that's what you mean by EDMU? The longest platform at any station between Oxford and Worcester can accommodate six 23m coaches, most take four or five, so coupled anything is pretty much a no-no and coupled IEPs won't be any better suited to the Cotswold peak services either, even if DafT seem to be in denial about this. There aren't enough 180s anyway, even if FGW had the lot and they were the most reliable dmu in existence.

Now that I agree with! Not just because I've been bowled by a Turbo more times than I care to remember. The idea of running high-density suburban units on such a long journey was flawed from the start. So was the idea of 90 mph units operating on 125 mph fast lines. I was delighted when FGW sorted out this scourge of sectorisation.

What do you mean sorted out? They never have, despite proclaiming in 2006 that the fast lines would be a 125mph zone - they then got rid of the 180s, thus making it impossible. And the idea of running high-density units was because they had to come up quickly with a cheap and cheerful way to cover the Cotswold Line when it became an NSE route, so they tinkered about with the 165 design.

That doesn't mean it can't do it, of course, only that it hasn't been tried yet. However, I don't think it's a good idea to find out.

It might work but given all the trauma BR went through over the early years with the Valenta, I'm not sure I'd want to risk the future of so many important services on whether the Caterpillar engine can handle the punishment involved.

 

[TGV]

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

We set ours to 14º.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Then of course what do you do with the locos when a service no longer needs them? More worrying what happens when there is no need for any intercity services to be hauled by loco and there a load of 15 years old locos sat idle?.

But, in exactly the same way, what do you do with the engines under the bi-modes when/if more wiring gets done. At least the Loco could be used to replace 67s in a few years time, exported or even drag freight. That would all be better than coaches built to carry an engine that no longer need the engine.

Bi-model then allows for future changes to the network (for instance what would happen if electrification was done from London to Westbury and then from Exeter to Plymouth) without needing to change where the locos are based whilst maximising the use of electric traction.?.

Electrification will get extended in larger chunks than you suggest above. Westbury is not important enough I suggest. Electrification will get extended, in the future, to Exeter or Plymouth.

I can see one case where electrification is done in patches - the NE-SW route. As much as I hate Bi-Modes I would be tempted to make use of the EXISTING diesel trains (220s & 221s) by adding a Pantograph coach and seeing electrification filling in from the bottom of the Lickey Bank (Bromsgrove !) past Birmingham-Derby, past Sheffield-Doncaster to Edinburgh.

Although there are going to be new depots I would have thought that they will be mostly upgrades to what is already there to cope with the new type of train. However this would be the case with any new stock, even if it was a class of train that already exists on the UK network but does not run on the GWML.

Probably easy to alter, say, Exeter to handle diesel locos. Compare that to adapting other depots to handle 8 or 10 coach trains with engines dotted about under them.

Remember BI-MODE is just too complicated and that complication is burdened on the vast majority of the units for only a minority routes needing them.

Someone earlier mentioned the problem of coupling/uncoupling a loco at an unmanned station. But why would the wires end at an unmanned station ?. OK I could see the wires going to somwhere convenient beyond Oxford, Edinburgh(near the fourth bridge but Perth is likely soon with EGIP) or Crewe(i.e. Chester or somewhere less busy) so that the attaching/detaching takes place at a less busy spot. Point is if something is not electrified then the lower acceleration and time spent attaching/detaching is not so important. If it gets important then probably its time to electrify to that area.

If I was to accept IEP then I would use the IC225s to work beyond Edinburgh and York with a diesel attached at those points. Leaving the nice shiny new IEPs as electric only. See how I slipped IC225s into the thread !.

 

[LE Greys]

To answer most of those points above, I was going for a three-pool solution.

• A pool of new EMUs running to the ends of the wires, gradually increasing in number as they reach Bristol, Swansea and various points west of Exeter (eventually Penzance)
• Which replaces shrinking pool of HSTs, steadily being phased out as electrification spreads accross the west
• A smallish pool of 125 mph DMUs for in-between services, particularly Cheltenham and the Cotswold Line, these need not be 180s, but similar
• A small pool of electric locos to cover failures and drag a few units beyond the wires as necessary

My comment about being 'bowled by a 166' (a unit I hate with a vengance) applies particularly to the Cotswold. I am fully aware that they haven't been entirely replaced, but I was under the impression that had more to do with stock shortages than actual intent. Also, wouldn't a combination of SDO and (hopefully) some platform extensions allow 10-car workings on the Cotswold without too much difficulty?

Didn't someone up the thread mention that MkIVs couldn't get over the Tay Bridge? I'd certainly like to see them going to Aberdeen. It's possible today, but only by putting the 91 on the south end. A 67 waits in a through platform at Waverley. 225 set, running DVT first, arrives and buffers up to it. 67 hooks on. 91 hooks off. 67 departs leaving 91 sitting in the platform. 91 goes to east end bay. 67 runs round at Aberdeen (where the train has to be washed and loco/power cars fuelled anyway). 67 arrives as Waverley, hooks off, goes to a different bay. 91 leaves from original bay, hooks on, then takes the train to King's Cross. However, that relies on screw couplings, smooth station working and plenty of time (plus 67s aren't exactly Big Bertha). So we're probably stuck with HSTs for now. If that ever uses EMUs, then it's different.

 

[The Ham]

Electrification will get extended in larger chunks than you suggest above. Westbury is not important enough I suggest. Electrification will get extended, in the future, to Exeter or Plymouth.

Westbury and then back to Bath is being looked at as an option to enable Bedwyn to retain it's direct services rather than needing to change at Newbury. OK electrification will extend in the future but when that will be and how quickly all the way to the end of Cornwall is another matter.

I can see one case where electrification is done in patches - the NE-SW route. As much as I hate Bi-Modes I would be tempted to make use of the EXISTING diesel trains (220s & 221s) by adding a Pantograph coach and seeing electrification filling in from the bottom of the Lickey Bank (Bromsgrove !) past Birmingham-Derby, past Sheffield-Doncaster to Edinburgh.

Sorry it's not going to happen.

Someone earlier mentioned the problem of coupling/uncoupling a loco at an unmanned station. But why would the wires end at an unmanned station ?. OK I could see the wires going to somwhere convenient beyond Oxford, Edinburgh(near the fourth bridge but Perth is likely soon with EGIP) or Crewe(i.e. Chester or somewhere less busy) so that the attaching/detaching takes place at a less busy spot.

Bedwyn is simi-manned and one of the other options being looked at is ending the wires there, because there are stations where there are services which run to (especially metro type services) which make the business case for electrification to them but not beyond.

Point is if something is not electrified then the lower acceleration and time spent attaching/detaching is not so important. If it gets important then probably its time to electrify to that area.

OK, so to Exeter gets electrified, you'd have to be a brave person to tell Plymouth that they are not so important!

Likewise there will be still major towns and cities that will still not be electrified post 2019. Often people think it's IEP or we can electrify cast sections of the network in a twinkle of an eye. The reason for bi-model is we can't, in CP5 we are doing 900 route miles and it's still not getting close to enabling all the Intercity services to be EMU. Also even if you could, there are lines where there are intercity services where it could not be cost beneficial to electrify them.

If I was to accept IEP then I would use the IC225s to work beyond Edinburgh and York with a diesel attached at those points. Leaving the nice shiny new IEPs as electric only. See how I slipped IC225s into the thread !.

That is fine, unless the plan with IEP is to allow the IC225 to go somewhere else as their electric trains (MML has been suggested).

 

[junglejames]

...but...



...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.

I meant diesel locomotives would not be running to Pad. I was talking about locos when that was mentioned. Not turbos or 180s.

Youd do realise 319s are only 100mph dont you?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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...



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.



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 and .



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



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.



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 ?



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.

Now look back and see what my prefered options are. It definitely isnt a Turbo and it isnt a diesel loco north of Oxford. I have just been going through other options in the mean time, and answering somebody else that suggested locomotives north of Oxford.
My prefered option is actually a 222 with a panto car. Ive said the Cotswold services are perfect for a bimode. Ive never denied that. But you dont need IEP to give yourself a bimode.

Also, regarding diesel locos. It doesnt matter that nobody is building such a loco. Nobody had built a HST before it arrived. But we still built it. Every type of train has to have a first time. Oh, and only the Valenta/ VP185 and MTU engines have proved they can handle it. Doesnt mean they are definitely the only ones able to handle it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bi-model will also cater for the trains to Cheltenham & Gloucester which you appear to have missed, which means more locos at Swindon under your proposal.

Thats not a problem. More bimodal 222s. They suit that journey quite well, just like the Cotswold services.

Assuming that the line to Westbury gets electrified then once the IC125's are replaced if they are not replaced by bi-model trains then all the Plymouth and Cornish services would have to call at Westbury (which some do not call at). If the electrification only stops at Newbury then all the services will have to call there (which very few of them call at). All of which means more under the wire running to get to a depot. it also means a fair number of locos as the run to Cornwall and back from Westbury takes 4 hours 20 minutes each way, so basicly 9 hours (10.5 hours from Newbury) before the loco is back and ready to run again. Unless you are proposing that it would be loco hauled from Reading (to avoid stopping at the end of the wires) which would require more locos.

Then of course what do you do with the locos when a service no longer needs them? More worrying what happens when there is no need for any intercity services to be hauled by loco and there a load of 15 years old locos sat idle?

Bi-model then allows for future changes to the network (for instance what would happen if electrification was done from London to Westbury and then from Exeter to Plymouth) without needing to change where the locos are based whilst maximising the use of electric traction.

Although there are going to be new depots I would have thought that they will be mostly upgrades to what is already there to cope with the new type of train. However this would be the case with any new stock, even if it was a class of train that already exists on the UK network but does not run on the GWML.

1- The new depots are not upgrades. They are brand new depots being built by Agility Trains. They have had to go through all the planning permission for these brand new depots. Did you not hear about the little lies they told to the locals in Bristol nearby to the planned depot? Said all the trains were electric trains, and would be totally silent. Failed to mention the diesel engines underneath the bimodes which will need to be maintained, and which will no doubt involve running these engines at full pelt every now and again.
2- I have been told before to think about people that will be using these trains, so I will have to say the same to you. There is a reason HSTs are staying on services to the far west. Its because the locals do not want underfloor engines. So the HSTs will be staying for the forseeable future.
Then there is another problem. IEPs are not being cleared down to Penzance. It is proving too expensive. So if you did go bimodal, you would have to use another type of bimodal unit. Well hardly any point splashing out so much money on IEP, if you end up needing another type of bimode unit.
Oh, and as for not needing these locos anymore, and them sitting idle. Do you really think you will all of a sudden see all these extra lines electrified? No, of course not. These locos will always be needed.
Anyway. Have to think of the passengers. They do not want underfloor engines on Intercity services to Cornwall. Have to think of the railway industry as well. They do not want IEP.

And that is the end of it from me. Gone way off topic, and went much further than it was supposed to. For which i apologise to anyone who has got severely brassed off.

 

[JamesRowden]

I meant diesel locomotives would not be running to Pad. I was talking about locos when that was mentioned. Not turbos or 180s.

Youd do realise 319s are only 100mph dont you?

I would not be suprised if new 110mph EMUs are ordered for the Thames Valley services that run fast between Paddington and Reading (looking at the the current plans for the Crossrail services I think that Slough may lose its non-stop services to Paddington because the proposed Reading to Paddington services will only stop twice (Hayes and Harlington, Ealing Broadway) after stopping at Slough [so they might be fast enough to account for demand when combined with the advantages of the Crossrail services running]).

Now look back and see what my prefered options are. It definitely isnt a Turbo and it isnt a diesel loco north of Oxford. I have just been going through other options in the mean time, and answering somebody else that suggested locomotives north of Oxford.
My prefered option is actually a 222 with a panto car. Ive said the Cotswold services are perfect for a bimode. Ive never denied that. But you dont need IEP to give yourself a bimode.


Thats not a problem. More bimodal 222s. They suit that journey quite well, just like the Cotswold services.



1- The new depots are not upgrades. They are brand new depots being built by Agility Trains. They have had to go through all the planning permission for these brand new depots. Did you not hear about the little lies they told to the locals in Bristol nearby to the planned depot? Said all the trains were electric trains, and would be totally silent. Failed to mention the diesel engines underneath the bimodes which will need to be maintained, and which will no doubt involve running these engines at full pelt every now and again.
2- I have been told before to think about people that will be using these trains, so I will have to say the same to you. There is a reason HSTs are staying on services to the far west. Its because the locals do not want underfloor engines. So the HSTs will be staying for the forseeable future.
Then there is another problem. IEPs are not being cleared down to Penzance. It is proving too expensive. So if you did go bimodal, you would have to use another type of bimodal unit. Well hardly any point splashing out so much money on IEP, if you end up needing another type of bimode unit.
Oh, and as for not needing these locos anymore, and them sitting idle. Do you really think you will all of a sudden see all these extra lines electrified? No, of course not. These locos will always be needed.
Anyway. Have to think of the passengers. They do not want underfloor engines on Intercity services to Cornwall. Have to think of the railway industry as well. They do not want IEP.

And that is the end of it from me. Gone way off topic, and went much further than it was supposed to. For which i apologise to anyone who has got severely brassed off.

I think that the bi-mode IEPs are perfect for the Paddington-Hereford line.

I showed in the 'Future of the Intercity 125s' thread that the quantity of MML 222s is just right to run the Paddington-Plymouth/Penzance services (either 2tph [single sets with services running doubled up during the peak and 1tph to Penzance] or 1tph [double sets that split at Plymouth producing 1tph to Penzance])

When the planned Southampton-Reading-Coventry electrification is completed the present Bournemouth to Machester service will be able to run using electric trains (might have to be cut back to Southampton because I have not yet seen any official documents confirming some peoples belief that Southampton to Bournemouth will also be converted to AC).

East-West Rail and MML electrification should provide a quicker Crosscountry route between Reading and Derby/Sheffied than the present route via Birmingham. The spare Reading to Birmingham path could be taken by an extension of the Birmingham-Glasgow services. With the planned Slough-Heathrow link it might make sense for some Crosscoutry services to run there. My service pattern for Crosscountry services around Reading would be (obvious infill electrification between Sheffield and ECML required [not required if bi-mode IEP used]):

Southampton/Bournemouth - Reading - Birmingham - Manchester (390s/EMUs)

Southampton/Heathrow/Reading - Birmingham - Glasgow (390s)

Southampton/Heathrow/Reading - Oxford - Bedford - Sheffield - Leeds/Doncaster - York - Edinburgh (91s [IC225s] / bi-mode IEP)

If the 91s (IC225s) are sent to the MML than it would make sense for the spares to run an alternative service along the same line (there might not be enough for my idea in which case more electric IEPs could be ordered [bi-mode if Sheffield-ECML not electrified]).

The Voyagers displaced from the Reading Crosscountry services should be able to add enough capacity to all other Crosscountry services (apart from the turbostar operated service to Stansted). The displaced 180s from the Paddington-Hereford line should be adequate to replace all the reaming HSTs on the national network.

Because the number of 125+ mph diesel/bi-mode stock that we should have in 2019 should be enough to run all 125 mph non-fully electrified routes I do not see a need for the investment in developing a 'panto-car' for the Voyagers/Meridians.

 

[MattRobinson]

One solution to transferring diesel locomotives to depots could be thus:

Assume that the service runs from point A to point D. The best point to swap locos to let one into the depot is at point B; and the route is electrified from point A to point C, necessitating, in normal service, a loco swap from electric to diesel at point C.

Further, assume electric locomotive e and diesel locomotives d1 and d2.

In normal service, e hauls the train from A to C; the loco is swapped and d1 (which is stabled at C) hauls the train to D. This is done in reverse on the way back.

When d1 and e require maintenance, e hauls the train from A to B; e is swapped for d2 at B (allowing e to go for maintenance); d2 hauls the train from B to C; d2 is swapped for d1 at C; d1 hauls the train to D. Then, on the way back, d1 hauls the train from D to B (the loco swap could be done on the way back if more convenient); d1 is swapped for e at B allowing d1 to go for maintenance; and then e hauls the train from B to A.

This obviously requires quite a bit of coupling/uncoupling and messing around on the maintenance trips; but I envisage them being the last trip at night/ first trip in the morning and only then being at the maintenance intervals required. Further, it requires running a diesel service under the wires, but again it's only when the locomotives require maintenance.

This solution wouldn't require light engine moves apart from between B and the depot.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[tbtc]

I meant diesel locomotives would not be running to Pad. I was talking about locos when that was mentioned. Not turbos or 180s

Okay, so 90mph Turbos would be running services from Oxford to London under your plan?

Youd do realise 319s are only 100mph dont you?

You do realise that 110mph EMUs are being planned for the GWML "local" services, don't you?

There is a reason HSTs are staying on services to the far west. Its because the locals do not want underfloor engines

Have to think of the passengers. They do not want underfloor engines on Intercity services to Cornwall

I'm interested to learn more about this passenger survey which happens to coincide with your views on underfloor engines. Has there been a boycott of DMUs/ Voyagers?

 

[Electrostar]

Nigel Harris @rail has tweeted several pictures of the Mark IV refurbished seating mock ups.

 

[Manchester77]

Nigel Harris @rail has tweeted several pictures of the Mark IV refurbished seating mock ups.

So are they doing away with first class and just having standard and business?

 

[ainsworth74]

So are they doing away with first class and just having standard and business?

No it looks like the ROSCO (worth keeping in mind that these are mock ups from the ROSCO not the TOC) is suggesting three classes.

Business class, first class, first class table detail, standard class, digital reservation detail.

Well I'm not entirely sold (for one I hope table top plug sockets get ditched, they're terrible on FGW) but it certainly looks interesting and I look forward to more pictures as the design develops. Interestingly it looks like they're going to have lights next to the digital reservation displays which will hopefully mean it's still easy to spot what seats have reservations and which don't (my main gripe with the system as seen on 390s and Voyagers!).

 

[sprinterguy]

So are they doing away with first class and just having standard and business?

No, pictures of a first class seating mock up have now also been tweeted. I really hope that these designs never become anything more than just concepts. They look appalling compared to the superb Mallard refurbishments, which will be in no way ready for replacement from 2014.

 

[transmanche]

Well I'm not entirely sold (for one I hope table top plug sockets get ditched, they're terrible on FGW) but it certainly looks interesting and I look forward to more pictures as the design develops. Interestingly it looks like they're going to have lights next to the digital reservation displays which will hopefully mean it's still easy to spot what seats have reservations and which don't (my main gripe with the system as seen on 390s and Voyagers!).

The reservation system looks quite good. But the general decor looks a bit 1980s to me - and the seats don't look that comfortable.

 

[ainsworth74]

and the seats don't look that comfortable.

Well Nigel Harris said they were comfortable but he clarified that was at 'first sit' and after four hours his opinion might be different!

 

[jimm]

My prefered option is actually a 222 with a panto car.

Which don't exist, and the 220 with an electric power car proposal has been ditched on cost/complexity grounds, so your preferred option is a non-starter - what do you suggest instead?

To answer most of those points above, I was going for a three-pool solution.
A pool of new EMUs running to the ends of the wires, gradually increasing in number as they reach Bristol, Swansea and various points west of Exeter (eventually Penzance)
Which replaces shrinking pool of HSTs, steadily being phased out as electrification spreads accross the west
A smallish pool of 125 mph DMUs for in-between services, particularly Cheltenham and the Cotswold Line, these need not be 180s, but similar
A small pool of electric locos to cover failures and drag a few units beyond the wires as necessary

My comment about being 'bowled by a 166' (a unit I hate with a vengance) applies particularly to the Cotswold. I am fully aware that they haven't been entirely replaced, but I was under the impression that had more to do with stock shortages than actual intent. Also, wouldn't a combination of SDO and (hopefully) some platform extensions allow 10-car workings on the Cotswold without too much difficulty?

New emus are on order - they are called IEPs.

The only other 125mph dmus are the 22x series, which, due to design flaws, can't match either a 180 or an HST for seating capacity, so to serve Cotswold Line peak services I reckon you would need an 11-car formation (which I'm not sure is even technically feasible) to match the seating capacity of an FGW eight-car high-density HST with a mini-buffet - or two 180s. And what about allowing for further growth in passenger numbers?

As for "some" platform extensions, you would need to do work at every station bar the Oxfordshire halts (and of those, Shipton has regular calls by HSTs). If the redoubling is finally completed, you will need new platforms at Pershore and Hanborough. Cost of all that? A lot. Which is why I believe there should be some long bi-mode IEPs in the order.

 

[Max]

Those seats look very odd, almost like benches! Frankly it would be crazy to bin the seats from the Mallard refurbishment, they're comfortable and not even that old. Seems wasteful to be honest.

 

[Yew]

Those seats look very odd, almost like benches! Frankly it would be crazy to bin the seats from the Mallard refurbishment, they're comfortable and not even that old. Seems wasteful to be honest.

Yes, However I wouldnt say no to that style with the current seats. Although it looks a bit...Sterile, its not as bad as BR Beige. However I worry about the carriages being a bit bright whit that much white and (presumably) LED Lighting.

At least its not the dirty grey of the original interiors, although I dont like the carpet, it just screams 'Portacabin'

 

[fgwrich]

Yes, However I wouldnt say no to that style with the current seats. Although it looks a bit...Sterile, its not as bad as BR Beige. However I worry about the carriages being a bit bright whit that much white and (presumably) LED Lighting.

At least its not the dirty grey of the original interiors, although I dont like the carpet, it just screams 'Portacabin'

I'll agree with that, although does anyone else find that the interior colours look a little First Group ft a Bank? The lavender colour of those dado panels do have a slight First Group appearance to them, whilst the dark grey colours of the seats do slightly remind me of a bank. Also, are they really going to trust leather seats in Standard Class?

I wouldnt worry too much about a monocrome interior though - Wrexham & Shropshire / Chiltern already seem to have managed to create that.

 

[DXMachina]

I'm taking a pretty strong guess that it isn't real leather as this would be problematic for many passengers of an Indian origin or faith.

 

[TomJ93]

3 classes would make ticketing a pain in the arse. The illuminated cup holders are pointless and the tabletop ones need to be rotated 90 degrees like Chilterns to enable especially the popular apple chargers to fit.

 

[transmanche]

The illuminated cup holders are pointless and the tabletop ones need to be rotated 90 degrees like Chilterns to enable especially the popular apple chargers to fit.

I'd prefer the plug sockets to be below the table top - as they are on TPE tables. (Well, IIRC.)

 

[ainsworth74]

I'd prefer the plug sockets to be below the table top - as they are on TPE tables. (Well, IIRC.)

They are on basically every single train that has plug sockets barring a few exceptions (FGW HST first class being one). I'm not sure why there is a sudden trend amongst some to put them above the table...

 

[dubscottie]

No it looks like the ROSCO (worth keeping in mind that these are mock ups from the ROSCO not the TOC) is suggesting three classes.

Business class, first class, first class table detail, standard class, digital reservation detail.

Well I'm not entirely sold (for one I hope table top plug sockets get ditched, they're terrible on FGW) but it certainly looks interesting and I look forward to more pictures as the design develops. Interestingly it looks like they're going to have lights next to the digital reservation displays which will hopefully mean it's still easy to spot what seats have reservations and which don't (my main gripe with the system as seen on 390s and Voyagers!).

Its is clear that the person(s) that came up with this have never travelled by train..

God if they do this it will be the end of the East Coast!

And with the seats.. it will be like the Waltzers round curves.. Slide to the end and squash your friend!!

Notice the purple wall carpet? wonder if this was a First Group thing... Only they could come up with something so horrible and useless!