Class 43 (HST) trains post 2020.

[cjmillsnun]

I would suggest those who are sceptical of my views answer the following questions

1) Will the travelling public accept trains that are perfectly adequate for use albeit in the twlight of life sit in sidings or go to the scrap yard whilst they have to stand on the trains that do operate?

Will the travelling public get the choice???

2) Electrification announced for CP5 is not expected to actually complete in CP5. CP6 has not been declared yet and this assumes there will be some electrification included within it. If the HSTs are scrapped how do you propose to operate parts of FGW and XC - there aren't enough 220s / 221s / 222s to cover these I would suggest. CP6 electrification (if there is any) is unlikely to be in situ until December 2021 at earliest for first schemes pushing out towards December 2025 / December 2026 for later ones.

How many 222s would FGW need to cover the Cornish services?

XC only have 4 HSTs and they certainly aren't intensively used. I would suspect there are enough 222s/221s/220s...

3) I don't see the DfT authorising any more DMUs being built and additionally it has been said that squeezing in 3B compliant engine into our UK guage trains is very unlikely. so how do you propose to replace scrapped Pacers whilst retaining and perhaps enhancing capacity.

Never underestimate the ingenuity of people to make things fit.

4) I doubt the DfT will authorise any EMUs unless all existing stock is utilised first. This includes the Mark III and Mark IV sets. Refurbishment is cheaper than new trains.

Never underestimate the stupidity of DfT

 

[CalderRail]

I would suggest those who are sceptical of my views answer the following questions

1) Will the travelling public accept trains that are perfectly adequate for use albeit in the twlight of life sit in sidings or go to the scrap yard whilst they have to stand on the trains that do operate?

2) Electrification announced for CP5 is not expected to actually complete in CP5. CP6 has not been declared yet and this assumes there will be some electrification included within it. If the HSTs are scrapped how do you propose to operate parts of FGW and XC - there aren't enough 220s / 221s / 222s to cover these I would suggest. CP6 electrification (if there is any) is unlikely to be in situ until December 2021 at earliest for first schemes pushing out towards December 2025 / December 2026 for later ones.

3) I don't see the DfT authorising any more DMUs being built and additionally it has been said that squeezing in 3B compliant engine into our UK guage trains is very unlikely. so how do you propose to replace scrapped Pacers whilst retaining and perhaps enhancing capacity.

4) I doubt the DfT will authorise any EMUs unless all existing stock is utilised first. This includes the Mark III and Mark IV sets. Refurbishment is cheaper than new trains.

1) Will the travelling public pay the increased fares to lease & refurbish these trains for use?

2) If you are arguing for HSTs to run Calderdale Services... actually I'm not sure if they are even cleared for the tunnels.

3) I'm willing to bet there will never be any more DMUs built for the UK, ever. There just isn't the requirement for them given that we will, by around 2040-2045, have a completely electrified rail network. The existing DMUs will last long enough.

4) Cheaper for whom? The ROSCO won't want to refurbish a unit that has less than a decade left is use (refresh, maybe, but not fully refurbish). The TOC won't pay extra to get the ROSCO to do it, and DfT won't pay for bugger all at the minute (nor, to be honest, should it).




My bet - the HSTs will gradually fade out. Departmental use & conversion will account for maybe half a dozen, some open access operators will pick up some for a decade or so, the rest will gradually be eaten by the seawater in use on the Dawlish line.

One example will survive at the National Railway Museum.

 

[JamesRowden]

How many 222s would FGW need to cover the Cornish services?

I've shown in a previous thread that the 222 fleet is pretty much exactly the right size (including spares for servicing/refits/breakdowns) to run an hourly service between Paddington and Penzance, running as 5+6 or 5+5 east of Plymouth and then spitting to have just one set continue to Penzance. If 5+6 isn't enough capacity for the peak, the Penzance service could stop at fewer stops at the east end of the route during the peak, and a peak only hourly semi-fast Super Express Train operated service could run between London and Plymouth/Exeter to increase the service level.

 

[Rich McLean]

I've shown in a previous thread that the 222 fleet is pretty much exactly the right size (including spares for servicing/refits/breakdowns) to run an hourly service between Paddington and Penzance, running as 5+6 or 5+5 east of Plymouth and then spitting to have just one set continue to Penzance. If 5+6 isn't enough capacity for the peak, the Penzance service could stop at fewer stops at the east end of the route during the peak, and a peak only hourly semi-fast Super Express Train operated service could run between London and Plymouth/Exeter to increase the service level.

Similar Happens now. During peak hours, Penzance trains leave PAD at xx:03 most of which are Reading - Taunton Non Stop and xx:33 are Plymouth Terminators, which stop along the B&H, apart from the 1903 shoulder peak trains. On Friday just gone, the 1903 terminated in Plymouth, and FGW put on an extra service at 1935 to Penzace which ran fast to Taunton and picked up the normal 1903 FO stations to Penzance once it arrived into Plymouth.

I think if the 222s move across, we may well find that Plymouth goes half hourly throughout the day, with hourly extensions onto Cornwall operating as 5 coach trains (maye doubled up/longer in the peaks). There is enough demand for it, especially in the summer months. The only issue with running doubled up 222s in Cornwall is the short platforms. Stop Boards would need to go up (relatively easy) but some signals will need to be moved. Stations such as St Erth and Par could become problematic with trains fouling the points. Truro has the level crossing, but that platform should be able to accommodate most of the length. Also issues at Liskeard due to the branch and also Saltash.

On that front unless you sacrifice 5 car trains into 4 car trains to lengthen the 7 car 222s to 8/9 car 222s, there will be issues in high summer, where it would only be possible to run a single unit. It would also remove diagram flexibility

 

[al.currie93]

I thought the MML had been upgraded for 125 in places?

EDIT: it has... http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk...-Trains-Prepares-for-Launch-of-New-Timetable/

I stand corrected :P it was 110 when I last researched it according to that date :P thanks for the update

But still, my point still stands :P

 

[RobShipway]

1) Will the travelling public pay the increased fares to lease & refurbish these trains for use?

2) If you are arguing for HSTs to run Calderdale Services... actually I'm not sure if they are even cleared for the tunnels.

3) I'm willing to bet there will never be any more DMUs built for the UK, ever. There just isn't the requirement for them given that we will, by around 2040-2045, have a completely electrified rail network. The existing DMUs will last long enough.

4) Cheaper for whom? The ROSCO won't want to refurbish a unit that has less than a decade left is use (refresh, maybe, but not fully refurbish). The TOC won't pay extra to get the ROSCO to do it, and DfT won't pay for bugger all at the minute (nor, to be honest, should it).




My bet - the HSTs will gradually fade out. Departmental use & conversion will account for maybe half a dozen, some open access operators will pick up some for a decade or so, the rest will gradually be eaten by the seawater in use on the Dawlish line.

One example will survive at the National Railway Museum.

You will probably find some of the HST's, once withdrawn will get changed to be Measurement trains and maybe be adapted to be EDMU trains in some cases I would suspect as I think they still have a use for another 20 - 30 years giving that past departmental trains having served 40 plus years in public service went on to do another 20 - 30 years in departmental use before being replaced.

Yes, as some have suggested there will be perhaps 3 - 5 of them preserved as complete sets hopefully, but they will be have to be down geared for most preserverd lines due to the lot lower speed limit that they would be travelling.

 

[starrymarkb]

3) I'm willing to bet there will never be any more DMUs built for the UK, ever. There just isn't the requirement for them given that we will, by around 2040-2045, have a completely electrified rail network. The existing DMUs will last long enough.

I think there might be some small batches. Possibly something like the AGC units that SNCF have been buying (Dual Voltage Bi-Mode EDMU units) which are a Bombardier product (wonder if Derby is innovative enough to adapt another of their products to the UK)

 

[Class 170101]

3) Thameslink Southern Great Northern (TSGN) need more DMUs for the Uckfield line in order to run 10-car during the peak. The TSGN invitation to tender stated that there was the potential for a new DMU order. I think that this could be implemented in the form of an EDMU order for about 80 carraiges for the London-Uckfield and Brighton-Ashford routes since a significant amount of both routes is electrified. TSGN would still have a uniform self-powered fleet and the 171 fleet would be cascaded to other TOCs. More EDMUs could be ordered for other regoins as required. I think that 171s, commuter EDMUs and bi-model super express trains would be more suited to the needs of the network than HSTs.

During the next month let's see if anything close to my idea is announced.

Surely it would just be cheaper and more long term to lay doen the 3rd Rail equipment instead and buy EMUs?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Will the travelling public get the choice???



How many 222s would FGW need to cover the Cornish services?

XC only have 4 HSTs and they certainly aren't intensively used. I would suspect there are enough 222s/221s/220s...



Never underestimate the ingenuity of people to make things fit.




Never underestimate the stupidity of DfT

I was suggesting 222s for improved XC services where Voyager are used now (eg in pairs or extra services). I am certain there isn't enough for Cornwall operations and XC strengthening.

I thought the lack of space for the 3B engines had been suggested by people greater than me who know about these things bioth on this board and elsewhere.

Stupidity of DfT sadly yes can agree with you there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

1) Will the travelling public pay the increased fares to lease & refurbish these trains for use?

2) If you are arguing for HSTs to run Calderdale Services... actually I'm not sure if they are even cleared for the tunnels.

3) I'm willing to bet there will never be any more DMUs built for the UK, ever. There just isn't the requirement for them given that we will, by around 2040-2045, have a completely electrified rail network. The existing DMUs will last long enough.

4) Cheaper for whom? The ROSCO won't want to refurbish a unit that has less than a decade left is use (refresh, maybe, but not fully refurbish). The TOC won't pay extra to get the ROSCO to do it, and DfT won't pay for bugger all at the minute (nor, to be honest, should it).




My bet - the HSTs will gradually fade out. Departmental use & conversion will account for maybe half a dozen, some open access operators will pick up some for a decade or so, the rest will gradually be eaten by the seawater in use on the Dawlish line.

One example will survive at the National Railway Museum.

1. If guaranteed a seat in all dut unplanned disruption possibly yes
2. No, HSTs to end their days on Plymouth to Scotland XC routes as suggested by me previously. However a Pacer on the back of a 150 would surely be better than having to stand?
3. Agree with sentiments - I think new DMUs would be less than 10% chance of hapening.
4. Ok Refresh then, I don't quite understand the difference myself ROSCOs seem to use them interchangeably. However the A60 stock on the Met in London lasted 50 years why not the HST, I still think 2025 is a possibility, it will depend on whether more IEPs are ordered for Great Western to cover Cornish services (thereby meaning 222s don't need to go to Cornwall and can go to XC), the electrification programme and High Speed Rail.

 

[Haydn1971]

Re DMU's - are people talking purely Intercity/Express type DMU's ? Or any DMU ? There's going to be a requirement at some point for self power, that's still looking likely to be under diesel until someone cracks the battery power issue over long distances - thinking Highland lines

 

[Class 170101]

Re DMU's - are people talking purely Intercity/Express type DMU's ? Or any DMU ? There's going to be a requirement at some point for self power, that's still looking likely to be under diesel until someone cracks the battery power issue over long distances - thinking Highland lines

I think any in the sense of underfloor like 170s, 171s and 172s.

 

[RobShipway]

Surely it would just be cheaper and more long term to lay doen the 3rd Rail equipment instead and buy EMUs?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would actually be cheaper to put in overhead wiring than lay down a third rail and it would also be safer.

Besides what would be the point in laying down the third rail, if in 5 - 10 years afterwards it is pulled up for OHLE?

But until OHLE is put down you need a EDMU train that can not only operate third rail, but in the future work from overhead wires and when the times comes the diesel engine can be removed in the same way that will happen to the Class 801's in time.

 

[ginge]

What about on routes similar to the West Highland Line where it is unlikely that it will ever be electrified. The Super Sprinters won't last forever...

 

[Class 170101]

Surely it would just be cheaper and more long term to lay doen the 3rd Rail equipment instead and buy EMUs?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would actually be cheaper to put in overhead wiring than lay down a third rail and it would also be safer.

Besides what would be the point in laying down the third rail, if in 5 - 10 years afterwards it is pulled up for OHLE?

But until OHLE is put down you need a EDMU train that can not only operate third rail, but in the future work from overhead wires and when the times comes the diesel engine can be removed in the same way that will happen to the Class 801's in time.

It would be cheaper in the long run but it would be interesting to know where the Grid supply point would be for Oxted to Uckfield, how much else would you have to wire, recontruct bridges in order to reach the line. Clearly feeding Ore to Ashford from HS1 makes that line easier to electrify on the OLE principle but again re-construction of bridges etc will need to be done.

 

[starrymarkb]

What about on routes similar to the West Highland Line where it is unlikely that it will ever be electrified. The Super Sprinters won't last forever...

Something like this but with high floor and diesel engines?

They are designed with tourists in mind, there are windows in the corner of the roof to give views of the mountains they run through while going over the Brunig Pass. The 7 Car sets even have a restaurant car!

 

[Class 170101]

Interestingly Portillio has suggested trains with 'glass' roofs for Settle and Carlisle and the Far North Lines, I wuld have thought the West Highland would be ideal for this too.

 

[TheKnightWho]

What about on routes similar to the West Highland Line where it is unlikely that it will ever be electrified. The Super Sprinters won't last forever...

Are you sure? The Swiss seem to have managed some of their extremely remote routes, and I don't see why we shouldn't either. It might actually encourage more people if they were more aimed at tourists and got there faster than the car...

 

[RichmondCommu]

Not sure this is generally true... The Class 91 maybe, with their high-speed gearing, but I have heard before that the Class 87 hauling 9 Mk 3 coaches and a DVT could easily out accelerate a Class 390 until about 80mph...

Although the class 87's were indeed powerful locos, I find hard to believe that a class 87 in the circumstances you describe could out accelerate a class 390. Especially given that the class 390's employ distributed traction. However if you have some evidence that supports your claim I'd happily review this.

Re-gear the Class 91 to 125mph, or even to 110mph (the current speed limit of the Midland Main Line) and they may well do the same, and will have better reliability due to the motors having to apply less direct torque.

Several long sections of the Midland Main Line have seen line speed limits increased to 125 mph since last December although more work needs to be done. This has been well documented in a thread in this forum and not surprisingly had been planned for sometime before that.

As for the class 91's. Given that they have never reached 140 mph whilst in revenue earning service and that their acceleration is less than spectacular, surely the leasing company would have re-geared them during their refit over ten years a go? This leads one to think that any potential re-gearing would not be as simple or indeed as worthwhile as you suggest.

I personally find high-acceleration on intercity express trains a bit uncomfortable; I remember first going on a Class 222 and thinking "Whoa, ease off!" as it left London St. Pancras! I would actually prefer a slower accelerating train, and sacrifice the overall journey time a bit (which wouldn't be excessive) but that's just me :P

Now given your assertions that a class 87 could out accelerate a class 390 (and therefore a class 222), surely you would have had the same issues in the old days with class 87's and mk3's! To be honest in all of my years of travelling by train on our national network I've never met anyone who wanted the trains to be slower. To be honest I think the same goes for the rest of the developed world.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think there might be some small batches. Possibly something like the AGC units that SNCF have been buying (Dual Voltage Bi-Mode EDMU units) which are a Bombardier product (wonder if Derby is innovative enough to adapt another of their products to the UK)

It's worth noting that these trains are heavy units (in fact they weigh more than the 185's).

 

[Muzer]

The main issue with a glass-roofed train is that very few TOCs seem to be good at keeping the exterior of their trains even remotely clean - especially the roofs.

 

[thenorthern]

When the trains were built do you think British Rail thought they would last this long?

 

[RobShipway]

Since the HST was only designed as a stop gap, until the APT trains started in service, it has done wonderful to last the 38 years service which those that where introduced in 1976 will be completing this year.

 

[al.currie93]

It would be cheaper in the long run but it would be interesting to know where the Grid supply point would be for Oxted to Uckfield.

You've hit the nail on the head there :P before the 171s were ordered, Network Rail asked the DNO to design and price a connection circuit to the electricity supply network (ie. cables from the nearest suitable part of the distribution network and substations at specified points on the line, and the cost to install them). This did not include any of the actual works to the line itself, only those required to get the electricity to the lineside.

Apparently Network Rail took one look at the price, and Southern instantly ordered the 171s :P .

The distribution network in that area is very sparse and difficult and expensive to extend, hence it's unlikely that this line will be electrified soon because of that reason.

*Source: I work for the company, have seen the network maps, and my boss was the one who designed and priced that connection for Network Rail :P
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although the class 87's were indeed powerful locos, I find hard to believe that a class 87 in the circumstances you describe could out accelerate a class 390. Especially given that the class 390's employ distributed traction. However if you have some evidence that supports your claim I'd happily review this.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=89469&page=2

Post number 22. As I said, it's only something I heard before, I'm not claiming it to be the most reliable evidence. Would be interesting to see if anyone else has any information on this, and I will stand corrected if evidence comes up for the contrary.

I may have to get researching figures and get my calculator out as I'm actually fascinated now :P

Several long sections of the Midland Main Line have seen line speed limits increased to 125 mph since last December although more work needs to be done. This has been well documented in a thread in this forum and not surprisingly had been planned for sometime before that.

As for the class 91's. Given that they have never reached 140 mph whilst in revenue earning service and that their acceleration is less than spectacular, surely the leasing company would have re-geared them during their refit over ten years a go? This leads one to think that any potential re-gearing would not be as simple or indeed as worthwhile as you suggest.

As I put in one of my previous posts, I stand corrected about MML line speed. I was not aware of the change.

As for the second point, that is a fair point and one to consider. But the point still stands that regearing to 125mph will undoubtedly increase acceleration and reliability by a certain amount.

Now given your assertions that a class 87 could out accelerate a class 390 (and therefore a class 222), surely you would have had the same issues in the old days with class 87's and mk3's! To be honest in all of my years of travelling by train on our national network I've never met anyone who wanted the trains to be slower. To be honest I think the same goes for the rest of the developed world.

True, I may well have done, but I also never said that I'd prefer an 87+Mk 3 on acceleration grounds, and cannot comment on that as I never travelled on an 87 hauled train. And I'm proud to be the first that you've met then :P

 

[RobShipway]

You've hit the nail on the head there :P before the 171s were ordered, Network Rail asked the DNO to design and price a connection circuit to the electricity supply network (ie. cables from the nearest suitable part of the distribution network and substations at specified points on the line, and the cost to install them). This did not include any of the actual works to the line itself, only those required to get the electricity to the lineside.

Apparently Network Rail took one look at the price, and Southern instantly ordered the 171s :P .

The distribution network in that area is very sparse and difficult and expensive to extend, hence it's unlikely that this line will be electrified soon because of that reason.

*Source: I work for the company, have seen the network maps, and my boss was the one who designed and priced that connection for Network Rail :P
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=89469&page=2

Post number 22. As I said, it's only something I heard before, I'm not claiming it to be the most reliable evidence. Would be interesting to see if anyone else has any information on this, and I will stand corrected if evidence comes up for the contrary.

I may have to get researching figures and get my calculator out as I'm actually fascinated now :P


:P

It was Class 170101 that asked the question on how the line from Ore to Ashford would be electrified, not me but I take the point.

If you use third rail then you will need at least two sub stations along the route, as well as making the route where it is single track back to being two track. This as people have mentioned will cause issues over bridges and through tunnels on the route. The best way for I believe would be to continue the OHLE from Ashford to Ore, but again you would need at least one sub station for the OHLE power as well as double tracking the route as I said before in as many places as possible, accept maybe any bridges or tunnels depending on the height and width available. The only other option is to replace the class 171's with EDMU trains, which if that is done would mean that perhaps the Ore to Ashford route would never be electrified?

 

[starrymarkb]

Are you sure? The Swiss seem to have managed some of their extremely remote routes, and I don't see why we shouldn't either. It might actually encourage more people if they were more aimed at tourists and got there faster than the car...

Here's a good example, this is about 7000ft above sea level. Wired at 1500V DC. Trains run even in blizzards (but the line may be blocked in extreme conditions)

http://goo.gl/maps/LI2zR

 

[JamesRowden]

It was Class 170101 that asked the question on how the line from Ore to Ashford would be electrified, not me but I take the point.

If you use third rail then you will need at least two sub stations along the route, as well as making the route where it is single track back to being two track. This as people have mentioned will cause issues over bridges and through tunnels on the route. The best way for I believe would be to continue the OHLE from Ashford to Ore, but again you would need at least one sub station for the OHLE power as well as double tracking the route as I said before in as many places as possible, accept maybe any bridges or tunnels depending on the height and width available. The only other option is to replace the class 171's with EDMU trains, which if that is done would mean that perhaps the Ore to Ashford route would never be electrified?

The Kent and HS1 Route Specifiction document expects Ore-Ashford to be electrified with thrid rail or overhead within 30 years. The Sussex Route Specification document expects that the Uckfield line might or might not be eletrified with third rail or overhead in 2043.

 

[thetangoman]

Do you think the Luxury Train Companies would be interested in a set or two. The likes of The Northern Belle & The Royal Scotsman are nearly always top and tailed by 57's or 37's (at least when on The West Highland Line). Just a thought

Cheers Russell

 

[al.currie93]

It was Class 170101 that asked the question on how the line from Ore to Ashford would be electrified, not me but I take the point.

Oh haha! My apologies, I probably deleted the wrong quote command when putting the post sorry :P

 

[The Ham]

I was suggesting 222s for improved XC services where Voyager are used now (eg in pairs or extra services). I am certain there isn't enough for Cornwall operations and XC strengthening.

Thing is you don't need many 221's going over to XC to allow serveral services to see an improvement.

service 1 and 2 run by a 220 is replaced by a 221 (50 extra seats each service +25%)

service 3 run by a 221 is replaced by the above 220's (150 extra seats +60%)

Service 4 run by a 220 is replaced by service 3's 221 (50 extra seats +25%)

Service 5 run by a 221 is replaced by service 4's and service 6's 220's (150 extra seats +60%)

Service 6 run by a 220 is replaced by service 5's 221 (50 extra seats +25%)

Therefore with just 2 extra 221's (probably from ICWC) you can increase the number of seats on 6 services (by about 1/3 over that "fleet"). Compare that with one extra 221 benefiting one service (which is often what is thought could happen):

Service A run by a 221 has an adittional 221 added to it (250 extra seats +100%)

Yes that one extra service sees a lot of increase and it could be argueed that some services need that, but then there is also probably more need for lots of smaller increases spread out over more of the services.

Also it needs to be remembered that by the end of CP5 it is likely that XC could be running EMU's (probably dual voltage) on the Manchester to South Coast services. Which would free up even more 22x's, if a few short gaps get eletrified in CP6 there coule be even more EMU's for XC.

All in all, it is unlikely that XC will need the 221's from ICWC (even if they only get, say, 10 of them) as well as many 222's.

 

[TheWalrus]

I've shown in a previous thread that the 222 fleet is pretty much exactly the right size (including spares for servicing/refits/breakdowns) to run an hourly service between Paddington and Penzance, running as 5+6 or 5+5 east of Plymouth and then spitting to have just one set continue to Penzance. If 5+6 isn't enough capacity for the peak, the Penzance service could stop at fewer stops at the east end of the route during the peak, and a peak only hourly semi-fast Super Express Train operated service could run between London and Plymouth/Exeter to increase the service level.

Similar Happens now. During peak hours, Penzance trains leave PAD at xx:03 most of which are Reading - Taunton Non Stop and xx:33 are Plymouth Terminators, which stop along the B&H, apart from the 1903 shoulder peak trains. On Friday just gone, the 1903 terminated in Plymouth, and FGW put on an extra service at 1935 to Penzace which ran fast to Taunton and picked up the normal 1903 FO stations to Penzance once it arrived into Plymouth.

I think if the 222s move across, we may well find that Plymouth goes half hourly throughout the day, with hourly extensions onto Cornwall operating as 5 coach trains (maye doubled up/longer in the peaks). There is enough demand for it, especially in the summer months. The only issue with running doubled up 222s in Cornwall is the short platforms. Stop Boards would need to go up (relatively easy) but some signals will need to be moved. Stations such as St Erth and Par could become problematic with trains fouling the points. Truro has the level crossing, but that platform should be able to accommodate most of the length. Also issues at Liskeard due to the branch and also Saltash.

On that front unless you sacrifice 5 car trains into 4 car trains to lengthen the 7 car 222s to 8/9 car 222s, there will be issues in high summer, where it would only be possible to run a single unit. It would also remove diagram flexibility

How do you propose 2tph London-Plymouth would work? A semi-fast via B&H or via Bristol?

I think while the chronic overcrowding continues it would be mad to start scrapping good trains in two years time. Between 2016 and more electrification I propose an interim solution of 2+5 HST sets with power doors fitted. I would suggest these to go on Cardiff-Portsmouth/Taunton and even Cardiff-Holyhead/Manchester to release DMUs to go to Northern.

On a different note I would put 180s on B&H semi-fast services, alongside HSTs for the West of England services and possibly 222s cascaded from the MML, in turn replaced by 225s cascaded from East Coast.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I also add that 5 car 390s should have been ordered by now for Birmingham/Manchester-Scotland and a later order for London-Chester after wiring. This would enable 221s to go to XC for strengthening there and possibly new services.

 

[The Ham]

Running a train from London to Penzance takes between 5 and 6 hours, allowing a bit of time at each end that means that about 13 trains to run an hourly service.

Given that the 222's have 27 sets that would allow for a good number of them (allowing some spare for maintenance) to be run doubled up.

I would suggest that four of the 5 coach sets are reduced in length to 4 coach sets and the extra coaches from those are used to lengthen two of the 5 coach sets to 7 coach sets. There would then be eight 4 and eight 7 coach sets (enough to run a service with those sets every other hour with at least 1 spare).

The 4 coach sets would then "permanently" paired with four of the 7 coach sets giving 11 coach trains. These could then run coupled up to Plymouth and then split. The 4 coach set could run a stopping service to Truro before running back allowing the 7 coach set to run semi fast to Penzance and back in a similar time

(Alternatively, which would free up an extra DMU, the 4 coach set could run a stopping service to Newquay and back in a similar time frame, with the 7 coach sets running semi fast to Par. Although this is likely to be overkill during the Winter could be very useful in providing an extra unit for the other branch lines for the Summer months)

The remaining eleven 5 coach sets could then be run in pairs (at least for part of the route) as there would be a need for six trains to cover the gaps in the services from the above, which means that five sets are available to be run in pairs and for maintenance.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Do the engines in both power cars have to be running? If a shorter HST is used to replace a DMU, could they have just the engine in the lead power car running and not be excessively slow when accelerating?