DMU cascades and Micro fleets

[northwichcat]

I've incorporated that into the HOWL service.

Could an hourly HOWL service be justified? If not you'll still have some local Crewe-Shrewsbury runs.

Crewe - Chester I think should be combined with north Wales coast services and see 158s or 175s.

The WAG seem to want North Wales coast services, which don't go to London or Manchester, to go to Wrexham opposed to Crewe.

At present the shuttle connects with the Manchester-Crewe-London service both in a northbound and southbound direction to give a similar journey time between Chester and London to the direct service. Could that continue if it's integrated with North Wales Coast services?

Borrowing stock from Northern sounds like a good way of managing Wrexham - Bidston, can it be done?

Given the 175s used to be shared between the North West and Wales franchises, while the 350/1s used to be shared between the Central and Silverlink franchises sharing 150s seems possible.

Giving Wrexham-Bidston to Mersyrail or Northern would be a good idea and reduce the Class 156/155 requirement by one unit.

The problem with Northern running Wrexham-Bidston at present is none of the other stations on that line are served by Northern at present.

If Merseyrail get dual-powered stock then running Liverpool Central to Wrexham services would make sense and the service would then fit best with Merseyrail. I think 3rd rail DC electrification of Bidston-Wrexham is looking unlikely at present but I seem to recall Merseytravel are looking at dual powered stock.

 

[anthony263]

As I stated before I dont think you can justofy a hourly service along the whole length of the heart of wales line unless you added more loops.

An hourly service can be justified between Llandeilo & Swansea and Llandrindod to Shrewsbury - Crewe. Having a 2 hourly heart of wales line service would help comunities along the line as for some it is their only form of public transport and it gives west wales a link to Shrewsbury and Crewe especially if as is being predicted the Manchester - South Wales services are cut back to Cardiff in favour of giving Swansea a direct Swansea - Bath service

They are looking at running a Bristol - Swindon local service which would be a good thing taking congestion off the high speed services along the route.

To give Cardiff a proper 2 tph service to London Paddington I wont be surprised if they have both run non stop from Newport with 1tph calling at Swinond then London Paddington and the other 1tph doing Newport - Reading - London Paddington. Either that or you could just skip Bristol Parkway and Didcot which would still cut journey times from Carrdiff to London by 12 minutes to 1 hour 50 minutes.

Anyway back to west wales services I think teh service should be

1tph Swansea - Milford Haven

1tp2h Swansea - Pembroke Dock (Hopefully service can be increased to hourly or so if an additional loop and linespeeds are increased between Tenby & Pembroke Dock.)

1tph Swansea - Carmarthen shuttle

1tp2h Swansea - Llandrindod - Shrewsbury - Crewe (Every hour between Swansea & Llandeilo and Llandrindod - Crewe)

9 trains per day Swansea - Fishguard Harbour (Some trains will split & attach to other services at Whitland or Claberston Road, so some service could be formed of 4 carriages between Swansea and Whitland/Claberston Road).

Also we have to take into account if they re-open the Llangynfi branch in north wales this service could be interworked with an enhanced Llandudno - Blaenau Festiniog

 

[Chris125]

If Merseyrail get dual-powered stock then running Liverpool Central to Wrexham services would make sense and the service would then fit best with Merseyrail. I think 3rd rail DC electrification of Bidston-Wrexham is looking unlikely at present but I seem to recall Merseytravel are looking at dual powered stock.

If you mean Dual Voltage rolling stock then yes, that would seem ideal as 25kv electrification to Wrexham should be more affordable with the new EMU's almost certainly capable of conversion to DV operation even if they aren't fitted with the necessary transformer/pantograph etc on delivery.

Chris

 

[D365]

I was under the impression that it wasn't rock solid 100% guaranteed, given doubts about the works required on a few complicated sections, but I hope it does go ahead. The Goblin has a dire lack of capacity NOW, 2016 is three years off, how else can things be improved?

Final approval has been achieved recently.

The other micro-fleets to sort out are LM's 3 150s and 8 153s. I would suggest that these will only be replaced when Walsall-Rugeley TV and possibly Coventry-Nuneaton get wired. With reduced DMUs diagrams, this should free up enough 170s to replace both fleets, although the Bedford-Bletchley line will need a few platform extensions to allow 2-car 170s to be used vice the 150/1 and 153 used now.

Bedford-Bletchley is to be electrified and upgraded by 2019 for EWR.

Not sure about what's happening with Crewe-Chester-Wrexham. Would be good to add on if possible, like Hull.

I figure your plans are more immediate, but are they really be achievable, and will it please everyone?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Could an hourly HOWL service be justified? If not you'll still have some local Crewe-Shrewsbury runs.

Isn't the Crewe - Shrewsbury stopper only 2-hourly?

The WAG seem to want North Wales coast services, which don't go to London or Manchester, to go to Wrexham opposed to Crewe.

Don't they also want the north Wales coast line to be electrified? I don't see that happening unless the hourly N.W. Coast to Wrexham trains are diverted to Crewe (maybe if they terminated at Wrexham, instead of carrying on to Cardiff/Birmingham, with the wires including Wrexham - Chester as well as the N.W. Coast Line).

At present the shuttle connects with the Manchester-Crewe-London service both in a northbound and southbound direction to give a similar journey time between Chester and London to the direct service. Could that continue if it's integrated with North Wales Coast services?

I don't think so, unless there are other suitable ICWC services between Crewe and London to connect with. Is the current connection that important, given Chester has an hourly through London service anyway?

One of my main objectives by suggesting north Wales services run to Crewe instead of Wrexham is to encourage wiring of the north Wales coast and permit extention of the north Wales - Crewe services to Birmingham. That would be quite a time saving over the current Holyhead - Birmingham via Wrexham. Another key objective is to allow the hourly Cambrian mainline service without increasing the number of ERTMS-locked diagrams and without losing the through portion to/from the Cambrian coast each hour. Terminating the Birmingham International to Holyhead runs at Chester would, I think, save the two ERTMS diagrams needed to add an Aberystwyth portion on the residual Birmingham International - Chester service (this assumes the Birmingham - Holyheads are currently 4-car to Shrewsbury and 2-car beyond that).

Anyway back to west wales services I think teh service should be

1tph Swansea - Milford Haven

1tp2h Swansea - Pembroke Dock (Hopefully service can be increased to hourly or so if an additional loop and linespeeds are increased between Tenby & Pembroke Dock.)

1tph Swansea - Carmarthen shuttle

1tp2h Swansea - Llandrindod - Shrewsbury - Crewe (Every hour between Swansea & Llandeilo and Llandrindod - Crewe)

9 trains per day Swansea - Fishguard Harbour (Some trains will split & attach to other services at Whitland or Claberston Road, so some service could be formed of 4 carriages between Swansea and Whitland/Claberston Road).

Mine is:

• 2tph Swansea - Carmarthen, consisting of:
  • 0.5tph Swansea - Pembroke Dock
  • 0.5tph Swansea - Carmarthen
  • 0.5tph Swansea - Fishguard Harbour
  • 0.5tph Swansea - Milford Haven
• 1tph Cardiff - Carmarthen (via Swansea District Line), consisting of:
  • 0.5tph Cardiff - Carmarthen
  • 0.5tph Cardiff - Milford Haven
• Roughly 0.5tph Crewe - Swansea via HOWL, with a mix of 'semi-fast' (Gowerton, Llanelli, Ammanford plus the five passing loops and all-stops from Craven Arms to Crewe)

I suppose if you get the necessary loops on the Pembroke Dock branch to allow an hourly service you could replace the Swansea - Pembroke Dock I suggested above with a Swansea - Carmarthen and add portions for Pembroke Dock to the Swansea-Milford/Fishguard services.

Also we have to take into account if they re-open the Llangynfi branch in north wales this service could be interworked with an enhanced Llandudno - Blaenau Festiniog

Or the Caernarfon branch... Or even just a Bangor/Holyhead - Llandudno stopper to cut stops on the longer distance trains.

 

[northwichcat]

Isn't the Crewe - Shrewsbury stopper only 2-hourly?

Really it's all over the place at the moment with no standard pattern. Some of the Manchester to South Wales services form a stopping service between Crewe and Shrewsbury so ideally they there would be an hourly stopper to give the local stations between Crewe and Shrewsbury a proper service without needing the stop the long distance services there.

I don't think so, unless there are other suitable ICWC services between Crewe and London to connect with. Is the current connection that important, given Chester has an hourly through London service anyway?

This came up recently when someone was complaining about some Cheshire stations not getting good connections at Chester to/from London.

The services from Manchester depart Chester at xx:52 (via Warrington) and xx:04 (via Altrincham.) The direct arrival from Euston is xx:12 but the arrival from Euston (with a change at Crewe) is xx:46, so fits better for connections to both Manchester services.

The train from Manchester via Altrincham arrives at Chester at around xx:45, while the direct departure for Euston is xx:35 but is xx:55 (with a change at Crewe.)

The problem with changing timings for Manchester via Altrincham services would be pathing constraints.

And it's not just people making connections who would be affected. If the direct Chester-London service was cancelled then providing a good connection means people are less affected, a poor connection meaning you only get there 10 minutes before the next direct arrival means everyone will just cram on to the next direct service.

Crewe-London gets 2tph (express) to London - one from Chester/North Wales, the other from Manchester via Wilmslow. Liverpool and Glasgow trains run through Crewe opposed to stopping.

Also the Crewe-Chester shuttle should run 25-35 minutes after the Euston-Chester service to give a spaced out service pattern between Crewe and Chester.

 

[tbtc]

Don't they also want the north Wales coast line to be electrified? I don't see that happening unless the hourly N.W. Coast to Wrexham trains are diverted to Crewe (maybe if they terminated at Wrexham, instead of carrying on to Cardiff/Birmingham, with the wires including Wrexham - Chester as well as the N.W. Coast Line)

You could argue that if the proposed Cardiff - Abergavenny shuttles come about (post Valleys electrification) you could just fill in the gaps and create a proper half hourly service from Cardiff to Crewe (with some services replacing the need for local stopper between Shrewsbury and Crewe, at least one train an hour running to Manchester).

OR, if you want to justify electrification from Crewe to Holyhead, divert the current Cardiff - Holyhead to run Cardiff - Shrewsbury - Wrexham - Chester - Liverpool (reinstating the lost link from Liverpool to the Marches Line/ Wales).

OR, put all W&B services from Birmingham through to the Cambrian, run all Marches services to Crewe and run the Shrewsbury - Wrexham - Chester service as a Shrewsbury - Wrexham - Chester - Warrington - Manchester service.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Really it's all over the place at the moment with no standard pattern. Some of the Manchester to South Wales services form a stopping service between Crewe and Shrewsbury so ideally they there would be an hourly stopper to give the local stations between Crewe and Shrewsbury a proper service without needing the stop the long distance services there.

The only additional calls I've noticed some Manchesters make (other than on Sundays) are Nantwich, Whitchurch and Wem. All-stops services are normally the shuttle.

You could argue that if the proposed Cardiff - Abergavenny shuttles come about (post Valleys electrification) you could just fill in the gaps and create a proper half hourly service from Cardiff to Crewe (with some services replacing the need for local stopper between Shrewsbury and Crewe, at least one train an hour running to Manchester).

My idea is to add a 2-hourly Cardiff - Crewe train in the other hour to the Cardiff - Chester train, which would call at Whitchurch, Nantwich and Wem so the Manchesters don't have to. The Crewe - Shrewsbury all-stops would run through to HOWL in the other hours.

As for short-workings at the Cardiff end, I would have thought Hereford would be a more useful place to turn round at than Abergavenny (more onward connections at Hereford, London Midland and FirstGW services).

OR, if you want to justify electrification from Crewe to Holyhead, divert the current Cardiff - Holyhead to run Cardiff - Shrewsbury - Wrexham - Chester - Liverpool (reinstating the lost link from Liverpool to the Marches Line/ Wales).

That could be a good idea (I just suggest cutting the Birmingham/Cardiff - Holyhead services to Birmingham/Cardiff - Chester, but extending the Cardiff service to Liverpool would be nice if you could do it). Either way, Birmingham - Wrexham - Chester needs to terminate at Chester and not extend to north Wales.

OR, put all W&B services from Birmingham through to the Cambrian, run all Marches services to Crewe and run the Shrewsbury - Wrexham - Chester service as a Shrewsbury - Wrexham - Chester - Warrington - Manchester service.

Where would north Wales services go in that scenario? Use a second path to Manchester or go to Crewe?

As I see it the hourly W&B Birmingham services should go to Aberystwyth anyway, with a portion for Chester (via Wrexham) in alternate hours and a Pwllheli portion in the hour others.

 

[northwichcat]

The only additional calls I've noticed some Manchesters make (other than on Sundays) are Nantwich, Whitchurch and Wem. All-stops services are normally the shuttle.

That's partly what I meant. Arriva added those stops in to most of the off-peak Manchester to South Wales services a few years back opposed to running additional stopping services.

Cheshire East council proposed that Crewe to Nantwich should be electrified so that Nantwich can be served an extension of the Manchester-Crewe stoppers. Probably to create a similar situation to what happened at Congleton when the Manchester-Stoke stopper became all day and the service frequency was increased but the number of long distance services calling there decreased.

 

[tbtc]

As for short-workings at the Cardiff end, I would have thought Hereford would be a more useful place to turn round at than Abergavenny (more onward connections at Hereford, London Midland and FirstGW services)

True, but I saw this quoted as a WG proposal (i.e. only concerned about services within Wales, with no incentive to extend them beyond Abergavenny to Hereford)

 

[jimm]

If the Severn Tunnel Diversionary route is not on the electrification programme (which is the case) it has been left off. It has not been "dropped from the electrification programme' because it was never on it.

Don't start trying to change the wording I used, when I was directly quoting you.

Your previous post, which I quoted, said:

Similarly, since Cardiff - Cheltenham has been left off the electrification programme it needs some outer-suburban DMUs.

Hope that's clear - your words - left off.

I wrote:

As you have been told before, it has not been left off any electrification programme

And yet you suggest, and even have the nerve to put quote marks on it, that I said dropped. I didn't.

Using the words "left off", as I thought I made clear but obviously not clearly enough for you, suggests that a conscious decision has been made by someone not to electrify Cardiff-Cheltenham and Gloucester-Swindon. No such decision has been taken, because no one has been considering electrification of either route at this point.

And you said it, it's a diversionary route, used a limited number of times during the year for London-South Wales diversions. With the extended closures of the Severn Tunnel that wiring will require, you can bet your life Network Rail will be scheduling lots of other work down there at the same time, to minimise future maintenance needs, so diversions via Gloucester will likely be less frequent - and evil bi-modes will likely be available at weekends anyway.

Once the valleys are wired the only Wales & Borders DMUs in Cardiff will (I hope) be regional express stock.

Excuse me, but where exactly do you think the main heavy maintenance base for the dmus that will still be operating in West Wales for years to come is going to be? Cardiff, by any chance, same as it is now? So there will be all manner of dmus operated by the Wales franchise knocking around at Cardiff perfectly suitable for trips to Cheltenham.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Your previous post, which I quoted, said:

Hope that's clear - your words - left off.

Yes, I did say left off and if you got the impression I was trying to change that then you misunderstood my later post.

The route is not on the list for electrification therefore, it has been left off the list.

And yet you suggest, and even have the nerve to put quote marks on it, that I said dropped. I didn't.

I wasn't trying to imply that you had. I did not use '

' tags.

I was trying to say that if I had said the route had been 'dropped' then I would have been in error. However, I did not say it had been 'dropped' I said it had been 'left off', which it has.

And you said it, it's a diversionary route, used a limited number of times during the year for London-South Wales diversions.

and every day for an hourly service from Paddington to Cheltenham (or will be be arround 2017) and an almost hourly service (which should be hourly and hopefully would become so if the route was wired) from Cardiff to Cheltenham. It is not only used for diversions. It would also be useful if Cardiff - Cheltenham could be combined with the Swanline stopper to create a through service rather than terminating at Cardiff Central which has no bay platforms.

Excuse me, but where exactly do you think the main heavy maintenance base for the dmus that will still be operating in West Wales for years to come is going to be? Cardiff, by any chance, same as it is now? So there will be all manner of dmus operated by the Wales franchise knocking around at Cardiff perfectly suitable for trips to Cheltenham.

Since the IC125s will no longer be visiting Wales in any large numbers, if at all, and IEP will have a new Swansea depot, I thought the obvious place for the South-West-Wales DMU fleet to be based will be Landore. I only see Canton being home to 158s and 175s from Manchester/Chester, Portsmouth (not sure if they use Canton now though, and I don't expect that would change) and perhaps Carmarthen/Milford. You could use 158s or 175s on Cheltenham trips I suppose but they would be more suitable for the fasts (operated by XC) than the stoppers operated by ATW.

 

[jimm]

Yes, I did say left off and if you got the impression I was trying to change that then you misunderstood my later post.

The route is not on the list for electrification therefore, it has been left off the list.

I wasn't trying to imply that you had. I did not use 'quote' tags.

I was trying to say that if I had said the route had been 'dropped' then I would have been in error. However, I did not say it had been 'dropped' I said it had been 'left off', which it has.

and every day for an hourly service from Paddington to Cheltenham (or will be be arround 2017) and an almost hourly service (which should be hourly and hopefully would become so if the route was wired) from Cardiff to Cheltenham. It is not only used for diversions. It would also be useful if Cardiff - Cheltenham could be combined with the Swanline stopper to create a through service rather than terminating at Cardiff Central which has no bay platforms.

Since the IC125s will no longer be visiting Wales in any large numbers, if at all, and IEP will have a new Swansea depot, I thought the obvious place for the South-West-Wales DMU fleet to be based will be Landore. I only see Canton being home to 158s and 175s from Manchester/Chester, Portsmouth (not sure if they use Canton now though, and I don't expect that would change) and perhaps Carmarthen/Milford. You could use 158s or 175s on Cheltenham trips I suppose but they would be more suitable for the fasts (operated by XC) than the stoppers operated by ATW.

If we use language on the basis you suggest, then every line not currently planned for electrification has been "left off" (and by the way those were the type of quote marks I was referring to, not a coloured quote box). All those routes simply aren't under consideration at this point - not left off, dropped, or anything else.

"Left off" quite clearly suggests a decision has been made to discard such routes from consideration for electrification - it hasn't.

And neither of your pet routes has got to the point of being considered yet, and will not until XC electrification is considered as a whole - the only reason it is possible to contemplate Manchester-Oxford-Reading-Southampton XC electric trains by the end of the decade is because assorted other projects will make it possible, not because it was the key driver for wiring in those places.

Any GW express diversions are, and will remain, occasional, by their very nature - they simply will not justify the cost of electrification.

I'm really bored of repeating time and again why wiring of anything around Gloucester and Cheltenham won't happen until XC electrification - maybe this time you will read it and understand at long last. The expense involved is not worth it for less than half the regular passenger trains operating in that area every hour (or the odd diversion). It will not benefit either XC route, nor FGW on the Bristol-Worcester axis, nor a single freight train.

When you start to look at wires extending all the way between Bristol and Birmingham, bringing many of those services into the fold, then the cost of adding in Swindon-Standish Junction and Gloucester-Severn Tunnel Junction to take in the others becomes far more attractive - and, most importantly, cost-effective.

Landore is an obvious place is it. Why? It would need to be re-equipped at great expense to service and repair dmus, facilities which are already available at Canton and which will presumably have to remain in place to do the jobs that Machynlleth can't, unless you're going to send the 158s to Landore as well and create a dmu heavy maintenance centre, which sounds rather like what they already have in Cardiff. ATW might find Landore useful though - as somewhere to stable emus overnight.

And why on earth couldn't you use a 158 or two-car 175 between Cardiff and Cheltenham? You make it sound like the line is some sort of inner-suburban service with a stop every couple of miles and hordes of people trying to force themselves on board at each stop, where end doors would cause delays. There's a grand total of three stations in the 35 miles between Gloucester and Severn Tunnel Junction.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'm really bored of repeating time and again why wiring of anything around Gloucester and Cheltenham won't happen until XC electrification - maybe this time you will read it and understand at long last. The expense involved is not worth it for less than half the regular passenger trains operating in that area every hour (or the odd diversion). It will not benefit either XC route, nor FGW on the Bristol-Worcester axis, nor a single freight train.

Less than half the passenger services in that area perhaps, but at least an hourly service on both Cheltenham - Cardiff/Maesteg and Cheltenham - Paddington, both with under-wires running as part of the service. The new SEWTA rail strategy (currently out for consultation) proposes additional Cardiff - Chepstow services (hourly) and a recent issue of Modern Railways discusses plans for bay platforms at Cheltenham, which could see the frequency doubled to half-hourly on the Swindon - Cheltenham route, possibly all from London.

Landore is an obvious place is it. Why? It would need to be re-equipped at great expense to service and repair dmus, facilities which are already available at Canton and which will presumably have to remain in place to do the jobs that Machynlleth can't, unless you're going to send the 158s to Landore as well and create a dmu heavy maintenance centre, which sounds rather like what they already have in Cardiff. ATW might find Landore useful though - as somewhere to stable emus overnight.

What do you propose using on services west of Swansea then? And how are you proposing to get them to and from Canton?

A possible 2 EMUs per hour at Swansea is far less than will be seen in Cardiff, so where will all the EMUs from the valleys be going for maintenance? Canton? Will there be room for an EMU maintenance facility without reducing the size of the DMU maintenance facility?

And why on earth couldn't you use a 158 or two-car 175 between Cardiff and Cheltenham? You make it sound like the line is some sort of inner-suburban service with a stop every couple of miles and hordes of people trying to force themselves on board at each stop, where end doors would cause delays. There's a grand total of three stations in the 35 miles between Gloucester and Severn Tunnel Junction.

It isn't inner-suburban, but outer-suburban trains like 165s or 172s would be suitable. You could use a 175 or 158 without problems, but the Cardiff - Cheltenham stopper doesn't need regional express stock (the faster, and longer distance, Cardiff - Nottingham is a different matter) which is in short supply (see 150s on Fishguard boat train, 170s on Cardiff - Nottingham and talk of replacing 158s on Cardiff - Portsmouth with less-suitable 165s or 166s).

If we had enough regional express stock to go around the lines that need it, I wouldn't mind 175s or 158s running Cardiff - Cheltenham. As it is, I just think that would be a waste of regional express stock that's badly needed elsewhere.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Atw taking over Landore and using it as there dmu shed for west Wales and how is already planned.

 

[jimm]

Less than half the passenger services in that area perhaps, but at least an hourly service on both Cheltenham - Cardiff/Maesteg and Cheltenham - Paddington, both with under-wires running as part of the service. The new SEWTA rail strategy (currently out for consultation) proposes additional Cardiff - Chepstow services (hourly) and a recent issue of Modern Railways discusses plans for bay platforms at Cheltenham, which could see the frequency doubled to half-hourly on the Swindon - Cheltenham route, possibly all from London.

What do you propose using on services west of Swansea then? And how are you proposing to get them to and from Canton?

A possible 2 EMUs per hour at Swansea is far less than will be seen in Cardiff, so where will all the EMUs from the valleys be going for maintenance? Canton? Will there be room for an EMU maintenance facility without reducing the size of the DMU maintenance facility?

It isn't inner-suburban, but outer-suburban trains like 165s or 172s would be suitable. You could use a 175 or 158 without problems, but the Cardiff - Cheltenham stopper doesn't need regional express stock (the faster, and longer distance, Cardiff - Nottingham is a different matter) which is in short supply (see 150s on Fishguard boat train, 170s on Cardiff - Nottingham and talk of replacing 158s on Cardiff - Portsmouth with less-suitable 165s or 166s).

If we had enough regional express stock to go around the lines that need it, I wouldn't mind 175s or 158s running Cardiff - Cheltenham. As it is, I just think that would be a waste of regional express stock that's badly needed elsewhere.

That's a long way of saying you just don't get it - because you don't. No-one is going to wire the Gloucester triangle and the wider area for a Cardiff service operated by a two-car dmu (and a very lightly-loaded one at that end of the route) and one London train an hour, while all manner of other services are still using diesel power.

The talk in that Modern Railways article about more Cheltenham-London trains is pure speculation, as should be obvious on reading it. The article makes no mention whatever of the potential for extra stopping services to Bristol, a far more plausible use of new capacity at Cheltenham than vast numbers of London services.

Critical mass for electrification there will only come from a scheme involving the XC services and freight traveling between Bristol and South Wales and the West Midlands. End of story/fantasy.

As far as I'm aware, there will still be a railway line between Swansea and Cardiff post-electrification, with standard gauge tracks, which dmus could presumably use to get to and from Canton, as they do now.

And the depot there will clearly be redeveloped to accommodate electric trains, with reduced provision for dmus that are no longer needed in the Valleys, but that does not mean that expensive-to-provide heavy maintenance facilities for dmus in use across the entire Wales franchise area will not remain, does it?

Have you ever ridden in an FGW Class 165? Outer-suburban? Don't make me laugh. 3+2 seats and 1/3, 2/3 doors is inner-suburban. Franchises will use the stock they have to hand and ATW has quite enough types on its books already without adding anything else.

A 158 or 175 is fine for the Cheltenham service. You're the one that keeps saying two-car 175s are too short for regional express work - and they are. But they're not suburban trains either, so routes like Cardiff-Cheltenham fit the bill nicely for them.

Atw taking over Landore and using it as there dmu shed for west Wales and how is already planned.

And your official source for this is what?

It may eventually become a dmu depot, but will it have the full range of facilities that Canton offers? While Machynlleth can do most things on 158s, there are certain jobs they have to go to Cardiff for.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Critical mass for electrification there will only come from a scheme involving the XC services and freight traveling between Bristol and South Wales and the West Midlands. End of story/fantasy.

Isn't there only one XC train per hour Bristol to Manchester? Bromsgrove to the GWML is arround 67.5 miles versus roughly 79.5 miles for the Severn Tunnel Diversionary Route. If you do either, there is 15.2 miles less for the other route since Cheltenham to the junction near Stonehouse is shared by both routes. Wiring either strengthens the case for wiring the other in exactly the same way. Plus wiring Swindon - Cheltenham - Severn Tunnel Junction now would align with rolling stock replacment on the GWML and on Cardiff local services. The FirstGW Bristol - Cheltenham service appears to only be 2-hourly and extends to Great Malvern, adding another 12.4 miles of wiring if you want to electrify that service. Assuming it goes hourly that still is only an hourly 2-car DMU and an hourly Intercity, exactly the same as the Severn Tunnel Diversionary Route and for almost exactly the same mileage electrified.

As far as I'm aware, there will still be a railway line between Swansea and Cardiff post-electrification, with standard gauge tracks, which dmus could presumably use to get to and from Canton, as they do now.

DMUs could run ECS to Canton at the end of the day perhaps. There's no point running through trains from west of Swansea to Cardiff except via the Swansea District Line, and the 75mph stock suitable west of Swansea would not be suitable for such a service (some linespeeds on the south Wales main line are higher than 75mph, hence my question of what you would use west of Swansea).

Have you ever ridden in an FGW Class 165? Outer-suburban? Don't make me laugh. 3+2 seats and 1/3, 2/3 doors is inner-suburban. Franchises will use the stock they have to hand and ATW has quite enough types on its books already without adding anything else.

I did Oxford to Didcot once, can't remember if it was a 166 or a 165 though. Is PAD - Oxford inner-suburban then? A 165 at least has plug doors and a 90mph top speed, isn't that closer to outer-suburban than a class 150? I assume you could put 2+2 seating in a 165 just as some 150s are 3+2 and others are 2+2.

As for ATW stock, I suggest replacing all their 150s and 153s with either 156s or 155s (in the later case they could keep their 153s to reform as 155s), so they wouldn't have more DMU classes. That's why I think Cheltenham - Severn Tunnel Junction electrification would be useful though as you then would be able to use the same type of stock for that service as you can for Maesteg, Swanline and Ebbw Vale services, and link those services across Cardiff to avoid terminating services there.

A 158 or 175 is fine for the Cheltenham service. You're the one that keeps saying two-car 175s are too short for regional express work - and they are.

Too short for most regional express work. However, some Cardiff - Chester diagrams might be able to cope with a 2-car and I expect Carmarthen/Milford - Swansea District Line - Cardiff would also.

 

[jimm]

Isn't there only one XC train per hour Bristol to Manchester? Bromsgrove to the GWML is arround 67.5 miles versus roughly 79.5 miles for the Severn Tunnel Diversionary Route. If you do either, there is 15.2 miles less for the other route since Cheltenham to the junction near Stonehouse is shared by both routes. Wiring either strengthens the case for wiring the other in exactly the same way. Plus wiring Swindon - Cheltenham - Severn Tunnel Junction now would align with rolling stock replacment on the GWML and on Cardiff local services. The FirstGW Bristol - Cheltenham service appears to only be 2-hourly and extends to Great Malvern, adding another 12.4 miles of wiring if you want to electrify that service. Assuming it goes hourly that still is only an hourly 2-car DMU and an hourly Intercity, exactly the same as the Severn Tunnel Diversionary Route and for almost exactly the same mileage electrified.

DMUs could run ECS to Canton at the end of the day perhaps. There's no point running through trains from west of Swansea to Cardiff except via the Swansea District Line, and the 75mph stock suitable west of Swansea would not be suitable for such a service (some linespeeds on the south Wales main line are higher than 75mph, hence my question of what you would use west of Swansea).

I did Oxford to Didcot once, can't remember if it was a 166 or a 165 though. Is PAD - Oxford inner-suburban then? A 165 at least has plug doors and a 90mph top speed, isn't that closer to outer-suburban than a class 150? I assume you could put 2+2 seating in a 165 just as some 150s are 3+2 and others are 2+2.

As for ATW stock, I suggest replacing all their 150s and 153s with either 156s or 155s (in the later case they could keep their 153s to reform as 155s), so they wouldn't have more DMU classes. That's why I think Cheltenham - Severn Tunnel Junction electrification would be useful though as you then would be able to use the same type of stock for that service as you can for Maesteg, Swanline and Ebbw Vale services, and link those services across Cardiff to avoid terminating services there.

Too short for most regional express work. However, some Cardiff - Chester diagrams might be able to cope with a 2-car and I expect Carmarthen/Milford - Swansea District Line - Cardiff would also.

I am talking about the entire XC service through Gloucester/Cheltenham - which consists of half-hourly services in each direction on the Birmingham-Bristol axis (some run to/from Bristol, others to/from Plymouth or Penzance) plus the hourly Birmingham-Cardiff 170-operated service via Chepstow each way. There is an hourly Bristol-Gloucester FGW service each way, which every other hour extends to Worcester or Malvern via Cheltenham.

If you can't even get the basics of what trains are actually running in the area at the moment correct, then no wonder you indulge in these fantasies.

And that's before you get on to all the freight traffic that operates round the clock there.

Class 16x sets are diagrammed to go all the way from London to Hereford and back on a Sunday duty, 3+2 seats and all. It doesn't make them intercity or regional express stock. They were built to handle commuter traffic in the Thames Valley and to run at 90mph be able to make a better job of mixing with 125mph expresses than their 70mph predecessors did.

FGW looked at putting 2+2 seats into them when they were refreshed but the position and design of coolant header tanks under some of the seats, plus the need to alter the brake system to allow for different weight distribution that would result, put paid to that at the time on cost grounds. It could be done if desired, but only at considerable expense.

So 90mph-capable trains aren't able to use their top speed throughout a journey between Cardiff and destinations in West Wales? So what? FGW HSTs rarely run at 125mph once they venture off the London-Reading-Bristol axis, XC services only run at 125mph for parts of their journeys, etc, etc, etc...

And I forgot to mention what the main illustration of that Modern Railways article about Cheltenham station was - a two-car Class 175 on a Cardiff working.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I am talking about the entire XC service through Gloucester/Cheltenham - which consists of half-hourly services in each direction on the Birmingham-Bristol axis (some run to/from Bristol, others to/from Plymouth or Penzance) plus the hourly Birmingham-Cardiff 170-operated service via Chepstow each way. There is an hourly Bristol-Gloucester FGW service each way, which every other hour extends to Worcester or Malvern via Cheltenham.

If you can't even get the basics of what trains are actually running in the area at the moment correct, then no wonder you indulge in these fantasies.

Actually, I was almost correct. The only thing I missed was the hourly FirstGW frequency Bristol - Gloucester, I looked from Cheltenham and only got the 2-hourly service. The XC trains to Plymouth and Nottingham would both require significant additional electrification in order to make use of wires between Cheltenham and Bristol. Bristol to Manchester would require the addition of Broomsgrove - Cheltenham as it is.

Class 16x sets are diagrammed to go all the way from London to Hereford and back on a Sunday duty, 3+2 seats and all. It doesn't make them intercity or regional express stock.

I never said they were, I said they were outer-suburban (and therefore, I would complain about them being used on Cardiff - Portsmouth which should keep regional express stock).

So 90mph-capable trains aren't able to use their top speed throughout a journey between Cardiff and destinations in West Wales? So what? FGW HSTs rarely run at 125mph once they venture off the London-Reading-Bristol axis, XC services only run at 125mph for parts of their journeys, etc, etc, etc...

I think you misinterpreted that bit. What I was saying was that: 75mph class 156 stock would be suitable for Swansea - Carmarthen/Pembrokeshire services but not for Cardiff - Carmarthen/Pembrokeshire services (which should run via the Swansea District Line if they continue at all and require 90mph units to make use of higher linespeeds between Cardiff and Briton Ferry).

 

[jimm]

Actually, I was almost correct. The only thing I missed was the hourly FirstGW frequency Bristol - Gloucester, I looked from Cheltenham and only got the 2-hourly service. The XC trains to Plymouth and Nottingham would both require significant additional electrification in order to make use of wires between Cheltenham and Bristol. Bristol to Manchester would require the addition of Broomsgrove - Cheltenham as it is.

I never said they were, I said they were outer-suburban (and therefore, I would complain about them being used on Cardiff - Portsmouth which should keep regional express stock).

I think you misinterpreted that bit. What I was saying was that: 75mph class 156 stock would be suitable for Swansea - Carmarthen/Pembrokeshire services but not for Cardiff - Carmarthen/Pembrokeshire services (which should run via the Swansea District Line if they continue at all and require 90mph units to make use of higher linespeeds between Cardiff and Briton Ferry).

In what way is halving the XC main line service and ignoring the XC Cardiff service (which is, in case you forgot, half of the passenger service running via Lydney and would have to remain diesel-worked along with all the freight in your fantasy, so hardly a plus for wiring) and missing out the hourly FGW Gloucester-Bristol service "almost correct?

The point I keep trying to make is that an hourly London train (which doesn't yet exist, of course) and an hourly Cardiff stopper constitute a small part of the services operating in the Gloucester/Cheltenham area, therefore, in themselves, will never, ever, justify the expense of electrification, which only makes sense if you can convert the overwhelming majority of the services, including freight.

So of course you need a wider electrification scheme, which means, as I keep saying, the XC route between Birmingham and Bristol. Once that is in hand, then other routes come into play - such as Swindon-Standish junction and Gloucester-Severn Tunnel Junction - not the other way round. Making operation of routes around Cardiff neat and tidy in terms of rolling stock is irrelevant. And the Gloucester area resignalling is another essential precursor to any wiring, as the existing kit is not immunised against interference from 25kv overhead.

My point about 16x stock is that as currently set up, it is inner-suburban in interior layout, but gets used for all manner of other things, including outer-suburban and Cotswold Line jobs, benefiting from the 90mph capability, because of the way the GW area functions and because there is nothing else available.

I don't believe for a minute that as currently set up 16x stock is suitable for the likes of Cardiff-Portsmouth but to say, as you do, that the two-car 175s are too small for most regional express services in one breath but then say that they shouldn't do jobs like the Cardiff-Cheltenham route, to which they seem well suited, with a handful of intermediate stops and an end to end journey time of 80 minutes, is silly. You'd soon want a 175 if you had to spend 80 minutes in a 16x seat on a regular basis.

The proposition that through trains between Cardiff and West Wales should stop operating, with everyone being turfed out at Swansea, is simply a non-starter politically - every AM and MP would be up in arms - so you will need 90/100mph-capable stock, whatever way it passes through the Swansea area.

ATW already has plenty of stock fitting the bill for either scenario on its books, so there is no point adding yet another type to the fleet in the shape of 156s, which are going to be in demand to replace 14xs in the North of England anyway, should any become available from Scotland. And given suggestions that Edinburgh-Glasgow electrification is likely to slip back from 2016 http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/edinburgh-glasgow-rail-link-faces-three-year-delay-1-2868665 don't bank on that happening any time soon.

The original point of this thread was that electrification offered an opportunity to simplify allocations of dmus, to get away from the current situation with operators having penny packets of various types, yet you want to introduce yet another to Wales.

 

[RobShipway]

Without wishing to step on any toes here, but the configuration within the 16x trains from being 3+2 to being 2+2 seating if required can easily be done as has been shown with class 455 trains which years ago when introduced where 3+2 if I remember correctly.

Also, I believe that the top speed of the 166 units is 100mph, whereas the 165's the top speed is 90mph, so again there is no reason other than maybe the width of these trains that they could not do either Cardiff - Cheltenham or Cardiff - Portsmouth if re - configured. It would also depend as Jimm has said how many are going North to replace class 142's as I suspect some would be staying within the GW franchise area when EMU's come on stream to replace the class 16x on the London - Reading/Oxford etc... services to replace the pacers within the GW franchise.

 

[Rhydgaled]

In what way is halving the XC main line service and ignoring the XC Cardiff service (which is, in case you forgot, half of the passenger service running via Lydney and would have to remain diesel-worked along with all the freight in your fantasy, so hardly a plus for wiring) and missing out the hourly FGW Gloucester-Bristol service "almost correct?

It was almost correct in terms of passenger services which would benifit from electrification of the Bristol - Birmingham and Severn Tunnel Junction - Swindon via Gloucester routes, I only missed 0.5tph from Gloucester to Bristol. For the Nottingham service to benifit you would have to add Birmingham - Derby to the electrification programme too. And as for the other Voyager service, that wouldn't benifit without alot more electrification.

The point I keep trying to make is that an hourly London train (which doesn't yet exist, of course) and an hourly Cardiff stopper constitute a small part of the services operating in the Gloucester/Cheltenham area, therefore, in themselves, will never, ever, justify the expense of electrification, which only makes sense if you can convert the overwhelming majority of the services, including freight.

So of course you need a wider electrification scheme, which means, as I keep saying, the XC route between Birmingham and Bristol. Once that is in hand, then other routes come into play - such as Swindon-Standish junction and Gloucester-Severn Tunnel Junction - not the other way round.

Why can't it be the other way arround? Leaving aside the frieght, which I know very little about (would their orgins and destinations all be on the electrified network anyway?) I would say the hourly Paddington service has the best case for electrification in terms of train length saved per mile of electrification. That is followed closely by XC's Manchester - Bristol service, the case for which would be strengthened by Swindon - Cheltenham being wired. Severn Tunnel Junction - Gloucester then gives 1tph Cardiff - Cheltenham and a possible 1tph Cardiff - Chepstow, strengthing the case for the Derby - Birmingham bit to be done for the Nottinghams. Only then might completing the Plymouth - Edinburgh route start looking achievable.

I don't believe for a minute that as currently set up 16x stock is suitable for the likes of Cardiff-Portsmouth but to say, as you do, that the two-car 175s are too small for most regional express services in one breath but then say that they shouldn't do jobs like the Cardiff-Cheltenham route, to which they seem well suited, with a handful of intermediate stops and an end to end journey time of 80 minutes, is silly. You'd soon want a 175 if you had to spend 80 minutes in a 16x seat on a regular basis.

Putting 2-car 175s on Cheltenham - Cardiff would be ok for the route, but what about spending 135 to 162 minutes from Pembrokeshire to Cardiff on a class 150? If I had a 150/165 (suburban units) and a 175 (regional express) I'd sooner put the 175 on the 135 minute service and the suburban unit on the 80 minute service than the other way arround.

And the Cheltenham - Cardiff, while you say it has few stops, is the line's all-stations service, the other service on the route (XC's Nottinghams) has fewer stops. Even my proposed Carmarthen - Cardiff service, 85 minutes, would have fewer stops (just 3 intermediate stations, Llanelli, Port Talbot Parkway and either a new station (Morriston) or Bridgend).

The proposition that through trains between Cardiff and West Wales should stop operating, with everyone being turfed out at Swansea, is simply a non-starter politically - every AM and MP would be up in arms - so you will need 90/100mph-capable stock, whatever way it passes through the Swansea area.

So, are you proposing that trains from south west Wales to Swansea should continue running onto to Cardiff causing some Swansea - Cardiff services to be 2-car DMUs? If so, I take it you are proposing using 158s and 175s on those? Trains between Swansea and Cardiff need more than 2 coaches, west of Swansea they probably don't need more than 2 coaches very often (the exceptions are Tenby in summer, some Fishguard ferry connections, special events and the commuting peaks).

As I see it, the journey time of over 1hr 40min between Carmarthen and Cardiff running via Swansea is such that anyone using it has a good reason for using the train and will not be put off if they had to change at Swansea. If you are going to provide through trains between Carmarthen (and points west) and Cardiff at all then, in my opinion, they should do it properly and provide a time-competitive service. That means avoiding Swansea. Anything going into Swansea should terminate there (with the possible exception of the 07:30 Carmarthen - PAD and the FirstGW Pembroke Dock services, for peak capacity reasons only).

ATW already has plenty of stock fitting the bill for either scenario on its books, so there is no point adding yet another type to the fleet in the shape of 156s, which are going to be in demand to replace 14xs in the North of England anyway, should any become available from Scotland. And given suggestions that Edinburgh-Glasgow electrification is likely to slip back from 2016 http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/edinburgh-glasgow-rail-link-faces-three-year-delay-1-2868665 don't bank on that happening any time soon.

Plenty of stock fitting the bill? Then how come the Fishguard boat train (2hrs 30mins with just three or four intermediate stops) is booked for an inner-suburban class 150? The fact is there are very few ATW routes outside the valley lines (which will require EMUs in future) for which a 150 would be suitable.

The original point of this thread was that electrification offered an opportunity to simplify allocations of dmus, to get away from the current situation with operators having penny packets of various types, yet you want to introduce yet another to Wales.

I am not trying to introduce another type. If the 156s came it would be as a replacment for Pacers, 153s and 150s, not in addition to these. Alternatively, we could have refurbished 155s (with improved legroom) instead of 156s, replacing the 150s and Pacers (153s would become 155s). In other words, my proposed Wales & Borders fleet in 2020, assuming no further electrification would be:

• Class 175s (Manchester - Cardiff (3-car), Cardiff - Chester (mostly 2-car, probably), Manchester - north Wales (3-car and/or 4-car throughout)
• Class 158s (Cambrian - Birmingham, Birmingham - Chester, Cardiff - Carmarthen/Pembs, plus perhaps some north Wales services)
• Class 156s or Class 155s (reformed 153s) (west of Swansea, HOWL and perhaps Conwy Valley)
• Class 377s (outer-suburban EMUs) (Swanline, Ebbw Vale, Maesteg)
• Inner-suburban EMUs (inner valley lines)

That's only 3 classes of DMU (compared to 6 today) although the 2 classes of EMU replace the 2 classes of Pacer to make a total of 5 classes.

Wrexham - Bidston would be worked by a class 150 hired in from Northern. Crewe - Shrewsbury would either run through to HOWL or also use a 150 hired in from a neighbouring TOC. The only way I can see that the Wales franchise might need 150s in future is if short-working stoppers were introduced on the north Wales coast (eg. Llandudno - Bangor) to speed up the mainline services. In that case Conwy Valley would be 150 worked and Wrexham - Bidston could be resourced from a pool of 150s in north Wales. They wouldn't be able to get to Canton though, so do Holyhead and/or Chester have the necessary facilities to maintain 150s?

 

[jimm]

You really don't get it, do you?

The heaviest passenger flows from Cheltenham are south towards Bristol and north towards Birmingham - routes where there are three or four passenger trains in each direction every hour.

There is one train each way on the Swindon route, and two via Chepstow - only one of which would be able to use electric traction in your fantasy.

The tail is not going to wag the dog here. The XC route is the one that matters. That's the be-all and end-all.

And you can't "leave aside the freight". With wires into Bristol and all the way out to Swansea, a lot of the freight terminals will either be wired themselves or be in easy reach of wires using locos with a last-mile diesel engine like the new DRS locos. Though I expect that's just another example of evil on a par with bi-mode IEPs and should also not be allowed.

With regard to West Wales services, they have yet to work out what's going to happen post-electrification, given that's five years away and likely to coincide with the new Wales franchise anyway. I didn't advocate any particular route, or type of rolling stock, simply pointed out that through running to and from Cardiff will have to continue one way or another. My fitting the bill comment was clearly a reference to the situation post-electrification, not now.

You have been told elsewhere why a 150 was on the boat train and I'll leave you to the rest of your rolling stock fantasies.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The heaviest passenger flows from Cheltenham are south towards Bristol and north towards Birmingham - routes where there are three or four passenger trains in each direction every hour.

I can appreciate that, but to get all of those trains (particularly the XC Edinburgh - Plymouth route) to benifit from electrification requires a heck of a lot more additional electrification than just Bristol - Birmingham, which only gets you 2tph, same as Severn Tunnel Junction - Cheltenham - Swindon would.

My fitting the bill comment was clearly a reference to the situation post-electrification, not now.

Yes, and my point was that they clearly don't have enough of the stock that fits the bill (class 158s and 175s), hence inappropriate use of class 150s. The currently planned electrification is not going to release huge numbers of ATW 158s for other routes in Wales. My other point is that, post-electrification, class 150s would not fit the bill for alot of Welsh routes. In the whole of south Wales I can think of only one diagram (a Carmarthen - Swansea stopper shuttle) where a class 150 could be acceptable. Better to standardise on types and get rid of the 150s, at least in south Wales.

 

[The Ham]

I can appreciate that, but to get all of those trains (particularly the XC Edinburgh - Plymouth route) to benifit from electrification requires a heck of a lot more additional electrification than just Bristol - Birmingham, which only gets you 2tph, same as Severn Tunnel Junction - Cheltenham - Swindon would.

To wire up XC to serve Plymouth-Glasgow (and having a separate train, or even TOC, running the services to Aberdeen) and Birmingham-Cardiff would require somewhere in the region of 350 miles. Although that would give you both routes to Cardiff (direct and via the tunnel) as well as both routes between York and Sheffield.

As I've suggested on another thread:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=89279

to get the most XC services to be able to be run as EMU's you'd do something like the following:

My thoughts are that the following routes should be fairly high up the list as they remove a lot DMU's from under the wires for only about 210 miles of electrification. The two routes York/Sheffield (about 45 miles) and wire up Derby/Birmingham (about 40 miles) and wire up the routes between Birmingham/Bristol and Cardiff (about 125 miles) and then the following XC services would be run as EMU services:
- (Southampton) Reading to Newcastle (85 miles of wires)
- (Cardiff) Bristol Temple Meads to Manchester Piccadilly (125 miles of wires, assuming both the route to Bristol and the more direct route to Cardiff)
- Bournemouth to Manchester Piccadilly (CP5 scheme)
- Cardiff Central to Nottingham (165 miles of wires, although this is mileage which is included in the routes above, so is effectively "free")

That would only leave the following services as DMU's (miles of wires would be in addition to the above):
- (Penzance/Newquay) Plymouth to Edinburgh Waverley (Glasgow Central/Aberdeen) (350 miles of wires to include the extensions, however only 145 miles of wires to be able to run Plymouth to Glasgow Central)
- Guildford to Newcastle (35 miles*)
- Paignton to Manchester Piccadilly (100 miles of wires, or 10 miles if the line to Plymouth has been done)
- Birmingham to Stansted Airport (125 miles of wires)

 

[jopsuk]

if/when the Fife circle is electrified there will almost certainly be a push to get the wires extended up to Aberdeen, which might have incidental enefits for XC.

 

[D365]

Without wishing to step on any toes here, but the configuration within the 16x trains from being 3+2 to being 2+2 seating if required can easily be done as has been shown with class 455 trains which years ago when introduced where 3+2 if I remember correctly.

Not sure if the 365s were built with 3+2 or 2+2, I think the latter but they're definitely all configured like so now.

Also, I believe that the top speed of the 166 units is 100mph, whereas the 165's the top speed is 90mph, so again there is no reason other than maybe the loading gauge of these trains...

Nope, 166 is 90mph like the GW 165/1s. It's the Chiltern Clubman/Turbostar 168 which is 100mph.

 

[jimm]

I can appreciate that, but to get all of those trains (particularly the XC Edinburgh - Plymouth route) to benifit from electrification requires a heck of a lot more additional electrification than just Bristol - Birmingham, which only gets you 2tph, same as Severn Tunnel Junction - Cheltenham - Swindon would.

Yes, and my point was that they clearly don't have enough of the stock that fits the bill (class 158s and 175s), hence inappropriate use of class 150s. The currently planned electrification is not going to release huge numbers of ATW 158s for other routes in Wales. My other point is that, post-electrification, class 150s would not fit the bill for alot of Welsh routes. In the whole of south Wales I can think of only one diagram (a Carmarthen - Swansea stopper shuttle) where a class 150 could be acceptable. Better to standardise on types and get rid of the 150s, at least in south Wales.

You clearly don't appreciate it. Of course XC needs further electrification to get the full benefit on its services running south-west of Birmingham but it's stark staring obvious that after the MML and electric spine wiring, the next things that will be done are the various connecting routes between South and West Yorkshire along with Birmingham-Derby, which instantly puts Birmingham (actually by then Bromsgrove) to Worcester, Gloucester, Bristol and Cardiff on the radar, because of the sheer number of services, both passenger and freight, across a far wider area that potentially benefit as a result of wires going to those places.

By comparison, the only services that benefit from your fantasy are one passenger train an hour between Cardiff and Cheltenham and one passenger train an hour between Cheltenham and London and the odd weekend of diversions. Everything else operating around Cheltenham and Gloucester stays on diesel - a method of propulsion you keep telling us is the work of the devil.

Whether 150s fit the bill or are appropriate is your opinion, not necessarily one that is shared by operators or the leasing companies.

Without wishing to step on any toes here, but the configuration within the 16x trains from being 3+2 to being 2+2 seating if required can easily be done as has been shown with class 455 trains which years ago when introduced where 3+2 if I remember correctly.

I laid out the steps required to change the 16xs to 2+2 above and it's not easy, in particular the coolant header tank system would need to be redesigned and rebuilt completely. Add that up across the fleet and the sums of money involved are far from trivial.

 

[The Ham]

You clearly don't appreciate it. Of course XC needs further electrification to get the full benefit on its services running south-west of Birmingham but it's stark staring obvious that after the MML and electric spine wiring, the next things that will be done are the various connecting routes between South and West Yorkshire along with Birmingham-Derby, which instantly puts Birmingham (actually by then Bromsgrove) to Worcester, Gloucester, Bristol and Cardiff on the radar, because of the sheer number of services, both passenger and freight, across a far wider area that potentially benefit as a result of wires going to those places.

By comparison, the only services that benefit from your fantasy are one passenger train an hour between Cardiff and Cheltenham and one passenger train an hour between Cheltenham and London and the odd weekend of diversions. Everything else operating around Cheltenham and Gloucester stays on diesel - a method of propulsion you keep telling us is the work of the devil.

Quite, it's a stepping stone to something more; as once Birmingham south and south west (Bristol & Cardiff) is electrified it then only requires 145 miles of electrification to allow Plymouth to Glasgow services to be run as EMU's. Add a further 10 miles and the Paignton to Manchester Piccadilly service could become EMU services.

That then just leaves services West of Plymouth (Penzance and Newquay) and North of the Scotish Lowlands (Aberdeen) which would require DMU's. As such that would only leave a releitively few services which would need to remain as DMU's and there maybe ways of having them overlap with EMU services so as to further reduce the amount of under wire running (e.g. DMU's running Cheltenham Penzance and Leeds Aberdeen with EMU's running Glasgow Plymouth)

 

[tbtc]

The service north of Edinburgh is fairly token (the WCML service to Dundee/ Aberdeen was withdrawn a few years ago and nobody seemed to notice - it never seems to feature in those far fetched lists of old services that people want to reinstate).

Bi-mode IEP is the answer for most of XC though.