GWR Cascade Delayed!

[CdBrux]

The union's Executive Committee has also considered this matter and notes that due to the delays on the electrification of the Great Western route, modifications on 800/1 rolling stock may need to take place to allow larger fuel capacity. This contradicts GWR and DfT excuse not to include buffet cars on these trains as they claim it will delay the roll out of the trains. Doing away with the buffet cars will inevitably lead to the deskilling of jobs and the worsening of terms and conditions. This is totally unacceptable to the union and completely irresponsible of the company.

[/I][/I]

So the RMT thinks the design of the train should be based around protection of jobs rather than what the customer wants?
Surely the first thing should be what the customer wants, then how that translates into financials (vs alternatives) and what the best economic case is. Now this could still be buffet car and then the union would have a credible case, but, as stated above, their case lacks any credibility and needs to be dismissed.

 

[47802]

Oh yes, I'm sure they will be gutted that there modern DMU trains will have to soldier on for another year or two.....:roll:

Still cannot understand why the Scottish government is prepared to take on old 1970s rolling stock anyway. And take it from someone who drives them day in day out, they are falling to pieces. The scots are in for a shock when they eventually do arrive!

Oh dear that comment wont go down well with those on here who think that HST's can last another 20 years

 

[bluenoxid]

If the 165's / 166's were to be used as 5 car sets on the Portsmouth > Cardiff run, would it not be a problem being as they were not able to have a through corridor connection?

If gauging issues would result in costly modifications on the above route & the 165's/ 166's were not used, where could else could they go?

Many thanks to all who have responded thus far.

How well would they do in Europe being a bit wider?

 

[irish_rail]

Oh dear that comment wont go down well with those on here who think that HST's can last another 20 years

They cant!!!!!!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

How well would they do in Europe being a bit wider?

Floors too high for many places in Europe such as French and German provincial stations which have low platforms and folding steps on the stock.

 

[davetheguard]

Agreed, but writing in an RUS that such and such will be operated 'following gauge clearance' makes it rather silly for people to then say that the same stock will never be able to operate because it isn't gauge cleared...

Hasn't some of the gauge clearance work for Turbos on the route already been done? The track was lowered under an aqueduct in the Avoncliff area as part of the recent Bath area blockade.

 

[Parallel]

So what do people think will happen if there are major delays sending the Turbos west? Will whoever is due to get the 150/1s and the 153s have to wait or will some be sent off and GWR/FGW forced to keep the Pacers and run loco hauled on certain services until they arrive? The stock is already stretched to near breaking point in the West!

I assume the Turbos will slowly ease their way into the west - Sounds like there is a lot of uncertainty, will be an interesting few years!

At least GWR/FGW have started on 150/2 refurbishments. Two units done so far! (150219 + 150238).

 

[virgintrain1]

So the RMT thinks the design of the train should be based around protection of jobs rather than what the customer wants?
Surely the first thing should be what the customer wants, then how that translates into financials (vs alternatives) and what the best economic case is. Now this could still be buffet car and then the union would have a credible case, but, as stated above, their case lacks any credibility and needs to be dismissed.

How about you have both a trolley and a buffet car, use the one best suited to the journey/how busy the train is.

Crosscountry said the trolley was passenger oritatited but passengers idealy wanted both. Excluding the voyager space aspect of the move.

 

[ainsworth74]

How about you have both a trolley and a buffet car, use the one best suited to the journey/how busy the train is.

Which is basically what Virgin East Coast do. They have buffets and trolleys on most trains but on quiter services towards the end of the day they only have a buffet and dispense with the trolley. It seems to work very well for them.

 

[virgintrain1]

Which is basically what Virgin East Coast do. They have buffets and trolleys on most trains but on quiter services towards the end of the day they only have a buffet and dispense with the trolley. It seems to work very well for them.

Which is what the RMT want for GWR. Doesn't sound that hard to implement?

 

[A0]

It wouldn't be that bad, would it? It would only be a temporary measure after all. If they timed trains for a slick cross platform interchange (where possible) I think it would be pretty painless.

What's more, I suppose they could run a handful of direct peak time services to soften the blow. Might release less units but it's better than nothing.

Depends how 'temporary', temporary actually is.

Don't forget on the GN line, electrification made it to Royston in 1976 with an onward DMU to Cambridge - yet the missing 'link' wasn't finally electrified until 12 years later......

 

[ainsworth74]

Which is what the RMT want for GWR. Doesn't sound that hard to implement?

You wouldn't have thought so would you! Particularly as SETs are modular so fitting a buffet should be reasonably simple (as seen by VTECs getting a buffet from teh start).

 

[swt_passenger]

Hasn't some of the gauge clearance work for Turbos on the route already been done? The track was lowered under an aqueduct in the Avoncliff area as part of the recent Bath area blockade.

Yes, but there were also conflicting reports about whether or not that was for freight gauge clearance or Turbo clearance.

Nevertheless, re-gauging of some sort was done, and I still think the present lack of Turbo clearance on the various routes is something of a red herring.

Unless or until someone formally cancels the project clearly shown in the CP5 plans.

 

[northwichcat]

So what do people think will happen if there are major delays sending the Turbos west? Will whoever is due to get the 150/1s and the 153s have to wait or will some be sent off and GWR/FGW forced to keep the Pacers and run loco hauled on certain services until they arrive?

There's a lot of variables involved and it might be something unimaginable happens.

Some people will recall Northern were required to enhance Manchester-Preston services in December 2008, as a result of increasing passenger numbers and a reduction in services by other operators between Manchester and Preston. The units they were supposed to receive were 6 x LO 150/1s released by 172s but the 172s hadn't been delivered. A surprise alternative was looked at and taken up - a sublease of 3 x 180s which NXEC had secured but didn't yet require.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Oh yes, I'm sure they will be gutted that there modern DMU trains will have to soldier on for another year or two.....:rolltill cannot understand why the Scottish government is prepared to take on old 1970s rolling stock anyway. And take it from someone who drives them day in day out, they are falling to pieces. The scots are in for a shock when they eventually do arrive!

I believe you and for what its worth I dont think HSTs are iether the rite answer for Scotland or will go on for x number of years to come. As Ainsworth points out, we have interesting times ahead. However none of this hides the fact that modern as they might be the 170s arent the answer to Inverness>Edinburgh/Glasgow both micanically or internally and dont provide enough capacity. A vaguely sensible short term solution if the HSTs are to be delayed would be to reallocate 158s in pares to this work, maybe even a 3rd unit attaching and detaching at Perth as once refurbished they'll be excillent. Its also a well known fact that the 158s that work up and back each day run to time where as the 170s dont often. The Borders line and Fife workings will enjoy the released 170s. Without wanting to start an old and boring debate I think the answer to Scottish Expresses would be MK4s or 442s with the traction gone, modiffications and a 68 on 1 end.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Oh yes, I'm sure they will be gutted that there modern DMU trains will have to soldier on for another year or two.....:roll:

Still cannot understand why the Scottish government is prepared to take on old 1970s rolling stock anyway. And take it from someone who drives them day in day out, they are falling to pieces. The scots are in for a shock when they eventually do arrive!

Abellio and Transport Scotland want HST sets because they say (or think) it's the only way to obtain diesel rolling stock for a franchise which is committed, currently, to a rolling electrification scheme (and which is funded to 2022-2023 currently).

It's not really a surprise that nobody wants to build new DMUs and lease them to ScotRail when they don't know where they'll finish their lives with electrification ongoing in Scotland and elsewhere.

I would genuinely like to know who told them HSTs would work out cheaper than leasing new Hitachi AT300 bi-mode units for a 27.5 year term through a special leasing vehicle such as Caledonian Rail Leasing. It has a feeling of a minicab business wanting to keep running Nissan Bluebirds just because they've got some spare parts for them.

The Scottish Government probably could have committed to a Section 54 undertaking to retain any new build DMU post Aberdeen/Inverness electrification for the WHL and Far North routes too, which would guarantee 25 to 30 years of a lease by the ScotRail franchise.

 

[northwichcat]

Abellio and Transport Scotland want HST sets because they say (or think) it's the only way to obtain diesel rolling stock for a franchise which is committed, currently, to a rolling electrification scheme (and which is funded to 2022-2023 currently).

National Express reportedly proposed new build trains in their Scotrail bid. I'm unsure on the specifics, the new build might have been new diesel trains, new bi-mode or new loco hauled carriages.

 

[jimm]

Yes, but there were also conflicting reports about whether or not that was for freight gauge clearance or Turbo clearance.

Nevertheless, re-gauging of some sort was done, and I still think the present lack of Turbo clearance on the various routes is something of a red herring.

Unless or until someone formally cancels the project clearly shown in the CP5 plans.

I don't know what conflicting reports you're on about. Network Rail was quite clear at the time what the work at Dundas Aqueduct was for:

The majority of the work at Dundas Aqueduct was completed over the weekend of 8-9 August and involved lowering approximately 1.5km of track. This will provide the clearance necessary to ensure a lower line speed will not have to be put in place through Dundas Aqueduct for the diesel trains that will be cascaded from the Thames Valley to service the valley branch lines once the new electric trains begin servicing the Great Western Main Line.

These particular diesel trains are longer, enabling passengers to benefit from more seats while maintaining journey times. The track lowering work will also enable this branch line to be used as a diversionary route for freight services in the future.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...s-track-lowering-work-through-dundas-aqueduct

But you're right about much of the talk about regauging being a red herring. The odds are most of what is needed across the West Country is pretty minor stuff given that the traditionally wider clearances on ex-GWR routes apply just as much in the West Country as in the Turbos' current stamping grounds.

I've said it before, so I'll say it again, 166218, complete with stepboards, ran all the way to Weymouth via Castle Cary on a Cotswold Line Promotion Group charter in 1997. And in 1991, 165001 got all the way to Plymouth, with stepboards removed as a precaution. Here's the proof http://www.dawlishtrains.com/165001-visits-devon.html

 

[Blindtraveler]

National Express reportedly proposed new build trains in their Scotrail bid. I'm unsure on the specifics, the new build might have been new diesel trains, new bi-mode or new loco hauled carriages.

I understand it was new LHCS - each bidder was tasked with making the Scotrail Express network a propper IC Style service and this is what they'll get when the HSTs join us, but at what cost I wonder?

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't know what conflicting reports you're on about. Network Rail was quite clear at the time what the work at Dundas Aqueduct was for:

There was some discussion, in the main GW electrification thread, it was back in July and August. It turned out the 'conflicting reports' were because NR's twitter feed had suggested the Dundas Aqueduct works were for for a diversionary route for container trains.

A few of us then posted links proving from other NR statements and fact sheets etc that it was 165/166 gauge clearance, but I thought I'd mention there was a debate just in case some people here had recalled the 'wrong' explanation.

 

[47802]

With the Hendy report yesterday and latest comments on GW electrification completion, I one wonders if all GW IEP's will now be Bi-mode, and what are the chances of some 365/387's being sat in a siding for quite a while.

If all GW IEP's do become bi-modes then you would think that once they get to Didcot getting to Oxford ought to be then the next Priority.

Meanwhile If Northern are planning getting on some cascaded stock from GW they might just about get it before the Pacer deadline if they are lucky.

Presumably the HST cascade to Scotrail will still be a priority and more Bi-modes will help this.

 

[83G/84D]

With the Hendy report yesterday and latest comments on GW electrification completion, I one wonders if all GW IEP's will now be Bi-mode, and what are the chances of some 365/387's being sat in a siding for quite a while.

If all GW IEP's do become bi-modes then you would think that once they get to Didcot getting to Oxford ought to be then the next Priority.

Meanwhile If Northern are planning getting on some cascaded stock from GW they might just about get it before the Pacer deadline if they are lucky.

Presumably the HST cascade to Scotrail will still be a priority and more Bi-modes will help this.

I heard that the HST fleet will go to Scotland when planned and will be replaced IF NECESSARY by ECML HST's.

 

[47802]

I heard that the HST fleet will go to Scotland when planned and will be replaced IF NECESSARY by ECML HST's.

I'm not convinced that idea is likely, they wont want IEP's sat around doing nothing and if the completion date for the rest of it, Swansea excepted slips beyond the 2019 revised date they could be faced with having to make some HST's which don't go to Scotrail 2020 compliant.

Of course there is the suggestion of building some East Coast IEP earlier instead of GW ones but that would presumably require a change in VTEC's franchise agreement.

 

[jimm]

With the Hendy report yesterday and latest comments on GW electrification completion, I one wonders if all GW IEP's will now be Bi-mode, and what are the chances of some 365/387's being sat in a siding for quite a while.

If all GW IEP's do become bi-modes then you would think that once they get to Didcot getting to Oxford ought to be then the next Priority.

Meanwhile If Northern are planning getting on some cascaded stock from GW they might just about get it before the Pacer deadline if they are lucky.

Presumably the HST cascade to Scotrail will still be a priority and more Bi-modes will help this.

Clearly a decision has been taken that getting as many miles as possible wired up on the GWML for use by IEPs operating off 25kv is the over-riding priority, trumping everything else.

Once you have taken that hard-nosed view, then wiring to Oxford is not a priority, because of all the issues around track layout/capacity/the future shape of Oxford station that I have noted in the Hendy Report thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=123592

Half of the Oxford-London fasts will be Class 800s anyway, as the Cotswold Line goes hourly throughout the day - and that's upped to a half-hourly service in the directions of the main peak flows - so that's lot of the fasts already planned to be covered by bi-mode trains.

Hang on to some HSTs a bit longer than planned to provide the maximum capacity you can on the fasts that only operate between London and Oxford and operate on the not unreasonable basis that you can at least get 387s to Didcot/Swindon and that the Oxford semi-fasts are fairly quiet north of Didcot so an interim Turbo shuttle can cover those stops and you can muddle through for a short time. The people worst off will be people commuting from Radley (aka Abingdon) to Reading and London, who will face a change at Didcot unless the odd peak stop can be worked into an Oxford-London train to ease the pain.

Some of the emus might have a leisurely time of it initially with Newbury and Basingstoke wiring put back but don't forget Crossrail is not due to start running west of Paddington until 2019, so the commuters of the Thames Valley certainly won't object to GWR running long 365 or 387 formations on everything that moves east of Reading, once the wires are in place.

 

[FenMan]

Will these delays have an impact on GWR's aspiration to run another hourly Reading - Gatwick from 2017 onwards?

 

[irish_rail]

I would of thought East coast HSTs are highly unlikely as they would need fitting with ATP. Makes no sense for a short period.

The common sense solution is surely to concentrate on the ECML IEP build first, and if necessary, cascade their HSTs to Scotland ....

 

[jimm]

I would of thought East coast HSTs are highly unlikely as they would need fitting with ATP. Makes no sense for a short period.

The common sense solution is surely to concentrate on the ECML IEP build first, and if necessary, cascade their HSTs to Scotland ....

ATP is clearly a consideration but there is also the question of whether Scotrail would want Class 43s from East Coast. The EC fleet has different cooler groups compared to GWR's Class 43s, so there is a clear issue over compatibility and maintenance routines there.

And Scotrail wants 27 sets - EC only has 14 HST rakes and 32 Class 43s, so they would still need plenty of GWR Class 43s to give them an adequate pool - 60+ presumably - to allow for maintenance and breakdowns.

I suppose it may well depend what conclusion the DfT comes to over whether to pay Hitachi to fit engines under all the GWR 801s to make them into bimodes.

If not, then some sums will have to be done to work out how many HSTs GWR can release depending on the progress of wiring work and how the 800s are deployed - ie do you put them on the Cotswold Line at first, where quite a lot of weekday trains are 180s, and Turbos do much of the work at weekends, so not freeing that many HSTs - though aiding Turbo and 180 cascades - or do you concentrate them on Bristol and Cardiff services, freeing lots of HSTs, though that presumably will depend on whether sustained diesel running at more than 100mph west of Didcot is allowed and/or deemed cost-effective.

 

[hwl]

ATP is clearly a consideration but there is also the question of whether Scotrail would want Class 43s from East Coast. The EC fleet has different cooler groups compared to GWR's Class 43s, so there is a clear issue over compatibility and maintenance routines there.

And Scotrail wants 27 sets - EC only has 14 HST rakes and 32 Class 43s, so they would still need plenty of GWR Class 43s to give them an adequate pool - 60+ presumably - to allow for maintenance and breakdowns.

I suppose it may well depend what conclusion the DfT comes to over whether to pay Hitachi to fit engines under all the GWR 801s to make them into bimodes.

If not, then some sums will have to be done to work out how many HSTs GWR can release depending on the progress of wiring work and how the 800s are deployed - ie do you put them on the Cotswold Line at first, where quite a lot of weekday trains are 180s, and Turbos do much of the work at weekends, so not freeing that many HSTs - though aiding Turbo and 180 cascades - or do you concentrate them on Bristol and Cardiff services, freeing lots of HSTs, though that presumably will depend on whether sustained diesel running at more than 100mph west of Didcot is allowed and/or deemed cost-effective.

Delivery of the GWR Devon and Cornwall bimodes in preference to the DfT ordered ones should help? As the Scottish sets will be short 4/5 car could some sets run with ex GWR mk3 and ex EC power cars till the ex GWR ones arrive or are there incompatibilities due to different modifications over time (door interlocking now)?

 

[The Ham]

Delivery of the GWR Devon and Cornwall bimodes in preference to the DfT ordered ones should help? As the Scottish sets will be short 4/5 car could some sets run with ex GWR mk3 and ex EC power cars till the ex GWR ones arrive or are there incompatibilities due to different modifications over time (door interlocking now)?

All that needs to happen is that the gWr AT300 engines need to arrive early and have a longer lease period. They can then be fitted under the 801's (bearing in mind there will be 101 engines for the AT300's and a MAXIMUM requirement of 84 under the 801's assuming that all of the 801's become bi-modal), that then gives gWr until the summer of 2018 (rather than 2017).

IIRC the difference in the engines is down to the AT300's not being down rated whilst the rest are.

One year may not sound like much but it could be that gives NR enough time to wire up enough of the network to allow the introduction of enough EMU's to then start running the AT300's to Devon & Cornwall. Although it may then mean that the extra services to the West Country proposed still rely on a few HST's until getting on for 2020.

Given that gWr have 119 class 43's, they should still be able to use a few and still allow for 27 (54 class 43's) shortened sets to be used by Scotrail.

Given the latest report is saying that Cardiff-Swansea is all that will be missing after the end of CP5 and the initial IEP order assumed that it wasn't going to be wired up anyway I wouldn't have thought that it would be too much of a problem post 2020. Rather the problem would appear to be mostly a 2017-2018 problem.

This will mean that the new Northern franchise may have to use Pacers to closer to the 2020 deadline than they had originally planned.

 

[jimm]

Delivery of the GWR Devon and Cornwall bimodes in preference to the DfT ordered ones should help? As the Scottish sets will be short 4/5 car could some sets run with ex GWR mk3 and ex EC power cars till the ex GWR ones arrive or are there incompatibilities due to different modifications over time (door interlocking now)?

It's not a question of things being built in preference. Work on the two orders is going to be taking place in parallel much of time in 2017-18, at both Newton Aycliffe and in Japan.

All that needs to happen is that the gWr AT300 engines need to arrive early and have a longer lease period. They can then be fitted under the 801's (bearing in mind there will be 101 engines for the AT300's and a MAXIMUM requirement of 84 under the 801's assuming that all of the 801's become bi-modal), that then gives gWr until the summer of 2018 (rather than 2017).

IIRC the difference in the engines is down to the AT300's not being down rated whilst the rest are.

One year may not sound like much but it could be that gives NR enough time to wire up enough of the network to allow the introduction of enough EMU's to then start running the AT300's to Devon & Cornwall. Although it may then mean that the extra services to the West Country proposed still rely on a few HST's until getting on for 2020.

Given that gWr have 119 class 43's, they should still be able to use a few and still allow for 27 (54 class 43's) shortened sets to be used by Scotrail.

Given the latest report is saying that Cardiff-Swansea is all that will be missing after the end of CP5 and the initial IEP order assumed that it wasn't going to be wired up anyway I wouldn't have thought that it would be too much of a problem post 2020. Rather the problem would appear to be mostly a 2017-2018 problem.

This will mean that the new Northern franchise may have to use Pacers to closer to the 2020 deadline than they had originally planned.

Re the engines on 800s and AT300s, they are exactly the same unit, simply that on a Class 800, the normal maximum power output of each engine will be regulated down to 560kw (750hp), but if one of the three engines on a five-car set fails, then the other two automatically step up to the full 700kw (940hp) output to compensate.

On the AT300s, the full 700kw output will be available all the time - so it is perfectly possible to set up the 800s to run at a 700kw output all the time as well - though this would presumably mean a more costly maintenance and overhaul regime to allow for the extra wear and tear on the engines.

The full AT300 order is due to be delivered and in GWR service in time for the December timetable change in 2018 - which is well ahead of the bulk of the East Coast 800/801s, where delivery is not due to begin until September 2018 anyway, running through to 2020.

Whether the 801s are instead delivered to GWR as bi-modes looks like being down to what is said next month about the new schedule for electrification, notably where the wires will have got to by the time they are due to be delivered between March and July 2018. If the wires are closing in on Bristol by then, allowing a key destination to be reached under 25kv, the temptation may be to stick with an all-electric fleet, or at least only order a limited number of nine-car bi-modes.