GWR Class 800

[JamesRowden]

The proposed Basingstoke to Manchester via East West Rail service which the Western Route Study draft anticipates in 2019 has the following stock options as I see it:

1. New or cascaded 110mph EMUs
2. New tilting 125mph EMUs
3. New tilting 125mph EDMUs
4. New non-tiliting 125mph EMUs (e.g. Class 801)
5. New non-tilting 125mph EDMUs (e.g. Class 800s)
6. Cascaded electric intercity stock (e.g. Class 90/91s)
7. Use 221s with tilt enabled
8. Use 220/221/222s with no tilt

(Cross Country would require new/cascaded diesel stock for options 7 or 8)

Once HS2 opens (2025), some pendolinos may become available. If class 800s were chosen, they could subsequently be cascaded to other Cross Country routes in 2025. Class 800s would not be able to run at 125mph along the WCML unlike options 2, 3 and 7.

I guess that this decision will need to be made for the franchise extension(s) from April 2016 to November 2019.

 

[swt_passenger]

I guess that this decision will need to be made for the franchise extension(s) from April 2016 to November 2019.

Yes if you consider that it is the sort of 'cross country route' that has to be operated by 'Cross Country' the TOC; but why must it?

It fails the 'via Birmingham New St test after all...

 

[JamesRowden]

Yes if you consider that it is the sort of 'cross country route' that has to be operated by 'Cross Country' the TOC; but why must it?

It fails the 'via Birmingham New St test after all...

I agree.

Intercity West Coast or London Midland could be possible operators, but I expect that the route better fits into the Cross Country franchise in terms of its market and the geographical range.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Intercity West Coast or London Midland could be possible operators, but I expect that the route better fits into the Cross Country franchise in terms of its market and the geographical range.

The WCML rump of the West Midlands franchise (after it is split) seems appropriate.
The East West thing is not finalised yet though.
What Network Rail says is feasible doesn't necessarily translate into TOC services.
Basingstoke seems a very odd place to terminate a long-distance service.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The analysis that the Electric Spine is built on - that replacing the electrification with 25kV was cheaper than as-is renewal, was based on previous estimates of the cost of new electrification using the High Output Plant Machinery and the new OLE designs.

These estimates have been shown to be not worth the paper they are written on.
This throws the whole conversion into question.

What's the first significant section of the SWML that will need its 3rd rail replaced (either with new 3rd rail or overhead) due to the current 3rd rail equipment being life expired?

 

[The Ham]

The WCML rump of the West Midlands franchise (after it is split) seems appropriate.
The East West thing is not finalised yet though.
What Network Rail says is feasible doesn't necessarily translate into TOC services.
Basingstoke seems a very odd place to terminate a long-distance service.

Basingstoke, although not a big generator of passengers, is quite well connected with many different routes passing through.

For instance services from; Southampton, Portsmouth, Weymouth, Salisbury, Exeter, Woking, etc. Although, for instance Exeter, it may not be the fastest way to Manchester it does show the range of places served and there may be stations not that far away from which it could be quicker and/or cheaper.

 

[higthomas]

Basingstoke seems a very odd place to terminate a long-distance service.

Not if it's the limit of overhead electrification, as it seems it will be for a few years at least.
(and possibly more than that given all the uncertainty over the conversion of Basingstoke to Southampton to overhead electrification.)

 

[jimm]

Yes if you consider that it is the sort of 'cross country route' that has to be operated by 'Cross Country' the TOC; but why must it?

It fails the 'via Birmingham New St test after all...

But there is a decent flow of people travelling across Birmingham on the existing XC services, rather than the trains all emptying and refilling there, and they wouldn't miss the trundle through the West Midlands, while East-West clearly opens up possibilities for new long-distance cross-country services, notably for Milton Keynes, Bedford and the East Midlands, that won't necessarily fit very well into the networks of the operators most likely to work the local services on the route.

While it's easy to see GW and Chiltern trains running local services into MK from the west and EMT perhaps taking on Bedford-Bletchley/MK stoppers, it's harder to see the likes of a GW or EMT service running, say, Reading or Bristol to Leicester, Loughborough and Nottingham, only calling east of Oxford at Bicester and Bletchley high level, Bedford and Kettering, which is probably where an expanded XC franchise would come in.

 

[swt_passenger]

What's the first significant section of the SWML that will need its 3rd rail replaced (either with new 3rd rail or overhead) due to the current 3rd rail equipment being life expired?

You need to separate the 'third rail' and the DC power supplies. The third rail itself is perpetually renewable, in similar fashion to a running rail.

Even then the power supplies have very variable ages, there are brand new DC 'huts' being installed now, between Basingstoke and Southampton, as routine maintenance and strengthening carries on as normal.

I can't think of a whole line where everything is exactly the same age, the way it originally spread out from Waterloo was over a very long period, and there's been major updates ever since - heading southwest from Basingstoke you basically pass alternate DC power sites that look practically brand new to over 50 year old.

If the change is made there'll be loads of equipment around 10 - 15 years old that will be reusable elsewhere.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not if it's the limit of overhead electrification, as it seems it will be for a few years at least.

As you say, and it's also a reasonably suitable place for a new bay platform to be built that doesn't require conflicting paths onto the SWML, and at the same time doesn't clutter up Reading with another terminating train. Until the additional four tracking in the Micheldever area takes place, (see the Wessex route study draft) Basingstoke may also be where the available passenger paths run out.

As pointed out recently, proposals to run the other alternate 2 hourly Newcastle - Reading terminators through to Southampton are already impossible because there is no track capacity south of Basingstoke.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But there is a decent flow of people travelling across Birmingham on the existing XC services, rather than the trains all emptying and refilling there, and they wouldn't miss the trundle through the West Midlands, while East-West clearly opens up possibilities for new long-distance cross-country services, notably for Milton Keynes, Bedford and the East Midlands, that won't necessarily fit very well into the networks of the operators most likely to work the local services on the route...

I agree it would effectively have to be a XC service by default, but at the same time a different TOC might even shake things up a bit fare wise. However, isn't Manchester - Basingstoke the only prospective longer distance route via EWR that has actually been spotted in print? Have any other new long distance passenger services via EWR been proposed in another document?

(Services additional to the three core EWR services, which are now shown as Reading to Milton Keynes, Reading to Bedford, and Marylebone to Milton Keynes on EWR's website.)

 

[jimm]

I agree it would effectively have to be a XC service by default, but at the same time a different TOC might even shake things up a bit fare wise. However, isn't Manchester - Basingstoke the only prospective longer distance route via EWR that has actually been spotted in print? Have any other new long distance passenger services via EWR been proposed in another document?

(Services additional to the three core EWR services, which are now shown as Reading to Milton Keynes, Reading to Bedford, and Marylebone to Milton Keynes on EWR's website.)

Things is, unless DfT does another major flip-flop on franchising policy, I can't see that it will wear another operator or operators doing XC-type things well beyond their core areas. There are already indications that in the long run they may move all or part of Liverpool-Norwich to XC and it would seem pretty odd to shut XC out of long-distance work using East-West when you're talking about just the type of services it specialises in.

I haven't seen anything specific in writing in terms of other possible services running well beyond the core East-West link but Network Rail's CP5 plan talks of the electric spine not only in terms of freight but also as a strategic passenger route between the East Midlands and the South Coast and Network Rail is looking at the idea of East-West line speeds above 100mph already. The Grip 3 study for the Bletchley-Bedford section's upgrading is due at the end of this year, so that may make things clearer in terms of potential services beyond Bedford.

Bear in mind XC's current north-south/south-west trunk routes do precious little for Nottingham (Nottingham-Cardiff in a two-car 170 isn't my idea of fun) and Leicester without changes of train at Derby or Birmingham at present and with the population of Milton Keynes forecast to hit 300,000 by 2025, future long-distance services from there going to places other than those on the WCML and its offshoots are a no-brainer, frankly.

 

[jopsuk]

(we're well off topic by this point) but currently the main reason Liverpool-Norwich ISN'T an XC route is that the franchise scope has always been centred around "routes through Birmingham New Street". There is of course nothing to say that this concept cannot be changed in the future.

 

[MCR247]

Contrary to popular belief on here, there is no reason to move Liverpool - Norwich to XC (apart from the franchise name :roll

 

[jimm]

(we're well off topic by this point) but currently the main reason Liverpool-Norwich ISN'T an XC route is that the franchise scope has always been centred around "routes through Birmingham New Street". There is of course nothing to say that this concept cannot be changed in the future.

Agreed the most recent posts might be better hived off in their own thread.

Currently there isn't an east-west rail route between Nuneaton-Leicester and north London (Bedford-Bletchley is not much more than a local link), so it's not as if there was scope for XC to be anything other than Birmingham-focused until now, but East-West will change that. And based on current Leciester-Bedford timings and East-West estimates, a direct rail journey from Leicester to Milton Keynes or Oxford would be at least a match for driving via the M1.

Contrary to popular belief on here, there is no reason to move Liverpool - Norwich to XC (apart from the franchise name :roll

As things stand, no, probably not, but East-West will change things - it would be pretty odd if services just stop dead at Bedford - so if it brings XC into the East Midlands in a bigger way, then anything's possible. It's not as if East Midlands Trains looks like the most logical operator of services in Norfolk, Manchester and Merseyside either.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Train-...loted-strike/story-26303195-detail/story.html

RMT are balloting their members partly over the doors being under the control of the driver, can't see any mention of guards being removed so they won't be DOO. Who controls the doors on the Javelins (similar design)

 

[ainsworth74]

If anyone wants to have further discussion about DOO on SETs there is already some discussion here.

 

[monsento]

not relevant to thread

 

[Kentish Paul]

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Train-...loted-strike/story-26303195-detail/story.html

RMT are balloting their members partly over the doors being under the control of the driver, can't see any mention of guards being removed so they won't be DOO. Who controls the doors on the Javelins (similar design)

The Driver.

 

[sprinterguy]

The UK class 800 has started testing at Old Dalby, and under a new design of "high speed" overhead conductor rail installed through Stanton Tunnel (image included in linked article):

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...2&utm_content=D&dm_i=IJS,3B74G,HA9II4,BUKIA,1
IEP tests at Old Dalby under new conductor rail system
Testing of the new Hitachi IEP stock is underway on the Old Dalby test track in Leicestershire, including under the new Rigid Overhead Conductor Rail System (ROCS)

The first of the five-car pre-series Class 800s arrived at Southampton Docks from Japan on 12 March. Most of the trains will be manufactured at Hitachi’s new plant at Newton Aycliffe near Darlington, starting later this year. They are scheduled to come into service on the Great Western Main Line from 2017, and on the East Coast a year later, with the full fleet operational by 2020.

Testing will shift to a section of the East Coast Main Line once complete at Old Dalby.

The Stanton Tunnel part of the Old Dalby test track has recently been refurbished, and uses Furrer+Frey’s high-speed ROCS, which is based on a rigid bar design, not the traditional tensioned overhead line, meaning there is a less likelihood of a de-wirement or snapping of the contact line. It is particularly suited to installation in tunnels, and is described by Furrer+Frey as “the ultimate ‘fit and forget’ system”, with no moving parts and low maintenance requirements.

Network Rail project manager Graham Denny said: “Installation of conductor beam through Stanton Tunnel has provided Network Rail the opportunity to work alongside leading industry partners to trial high speed running on ballasted track under the Rigid Conductor Rail System, which is a much more reliable overhead contact system. This will build on previous UK experience of conductor beams which have only been used in low speed tracks. In addition to gaining valuable experience about installation techniques including automated drilling, it also provides the opportunity for the new IEP trains to be introduced to this novel infrastructure.”

 

[TheKnightWho]

Am I correct in thinking that this conductor beam will also be more suitable for things such as swing bridges etc? I know that previously they could only be electrified on a single line at relatively low speed, which is why the Selby diversion was built as well as why Trowse bridge was singled.

Presumably this will be used in any Selby electrification, but could we see Trowse bridge redoubled? And, given the difficulties on the Forth bridge, could something like this be used due to its more stable positioning? It looks like it would be easier to insulate around it than traditional contact wire.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

While it's interesting that some new OHLE technology is being tested, I somehow think they will be concentrating on the basics at the moment, on the open section.
I suppose Box and Badminton tunnels are the first candidates for the bar system, culminating later with the Severn Tunnel.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Am I correct in thinking that this conductor beam will also be more suitable for things such as swing bridges etc? I know that previously they could only be electrified on a single line at relatively low speed, which is why the Selby diversion was built.

No, the Selby diversion was built because a new very large coal mine ( now closed due to major geological problems within it ) was being opened and there was a risk of subsidence affecting the ECML in the area. the ekectrification of the ECML came much later.

 

[ainsworth74]

No, the Selby diversion was built because a new very large coal mine ( now closed due to major geological problems within it ) was being opened and there was a risk of subsidence affecting the ECML in the area. the ekectrification of the ECML came much later.

Indeed! In fact wasn't the swing bridge prepared for electrification as it was expected that the ECML would continue through Selby?

 

[jimm]

Indeed! In fact wasn't the swing bridge prepared for electrification as it was expected that the ECML would continue through Selby?

Don't think so. The first of the mines was working from 1983, the same year as the ECML Selby diversion was opened and at least two years before any ECML wiring work started north of Hitchin.

Am I correct in thinking that this conductor beam will also be more suitable for things such as swing bridges etc? I know that previously they could only be electrified on a single line at relatively low speed, which is why the Selby diversion was built as well as why Trowse bridge was singled.

As far as I'm aware the reason Trowse Bridge is single-track is that the structure needed replacing at the time the Norwich line was electrified and BR chose to build a single-track replacement for the previous double-track bridge simply because it was cheaper and deemed adequate to cope with forecast traffic at that time, not anything to do with electrical issues, although it was the first such installation ever carried out - there are now beam-electrified double-track swing and bascule bridges elsewhere, especially in the US along the North East Corridor route - or you could just adopt the Dutch approach to the problem, see the video embedded in this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=99085

Trowse is now seen as a bottleneck and the equipment to swing the bridge is broken, so a double-track replacement there also seems likely.

This installation is to test the beam in UK conditions and with the Class 800s, as it will be used in places like the Severn Tunnel. The basic system is well proven, with versions of the Furrer and Frey overhead conductor rail system in use in tunnels on high-speed lines in Europe for 10 years or so. A speed of 302kmh was reached in tests in Austria last December

AUSTRIA: Installed by Furrer+Frey in partnership with HC-Electric, the rigid 15 kV AC overhead conductor rail fitted in the Sittenberg tunnel on the Wien – Linz route is the first in Europe to comply with the high speed infrastructure TSI for speeds of 250 km/h or higher.

In contact force measuring tests undertaken by ÖBB Infrastruktur using DB’s ICE-S test train on November 17, running speeds of 302 km/h were recorded in the tunnel.

Furrey+Frey says that this is a world speed record for a train using rigid catenary.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/rigid-catenary-speed-record.html

 

[ainsworth74]

Don't think so. The first of the mines was working from 1983, the same year as the ECML Selby diversion was opened and at least two years before any ECML wiring work started north of Hitchin.

Hmm perhaps I'm getting confused with something else then. I'm sure I've read somewhere that the swing bridge has already had passive provision for electrification.

 

[swt_passenger]

Hmm perhaps I'm getting confused with something else then. I'm sure I've read somewhere that the swing bridge has already had passive provision for electrification.

When we discussed this last time I did some Googling and found on an 'LNER' forum that the cabin was raised by over a metre in 1963 - to allow for electrification clearance.

Many ECML structures were altered for electrification as part of routine maintenance well before the wiring was ever approved.

 

[HowardGWR]

I tried this on the FGW catering thread but got no joy, yet.

Does anyone know why the all electrics are 9 car and the bimodes 5 car (for 10 car use presumably)? Does the capacity add up to the same?

 

[jimm]

I tried this on the FGW catering thread but got no joy, yet.

Does anyone know why the all electrics are 9 car and the bimodes 5 car (for 10 car use presumably)? Does the capacity add up to the same?

The nine-cars will be concentrated on the Bristol and Cardiff services, which are all under wires and where the demand is highest across the day. The bimodes will work some all-electric duties, notably to Swansea if you drop/pick up five cars at Cardiff, but in cases where you get beyond the wires, such as to Weston-super-Mare/Taunton, Gloucester/Cheltenham and the Cotswold Line, you can double up for the peak flows but most of the day a 315-seat train will be fine, or you can double up on the Oxford-London, Swindon-London, Bristol-London legs of journey, if you need more seats there.

Capacity will be used in a different way with IEP, eg more frequent London-Bristol services, shorter journey times allowing more work to be squeezed out of trains, etc, so not sure trying to compare what happens now with what will be happening when the major timetable changes take effect in 2017 and 2018, or five-car IEPs replacing eight-coach HSTs on some services, is possible. Not that this will stop people trying, as umpteen threads on this forum demonstrate...

 

[TheKnightWho]

Don't think so. The first of the mines was working from 1983, the same year as the ECML Selby diversion was opened and at least two years before any ECML wiring work started north of Hitchin.



As far as I'm aware the reason Trowse Bridge is single-track is that the structure needed replacing at the time the Norwich line was electrified and BR chose to build a single-track replacement for the previous double-track bridge simply because it was cheaper and deemed adequate to cope with forecast traffic at that time, not anything to do with electrical issues, although it was the first such installation ever carried out - there are now beam-electrified double-track swing and bascule bridges elsewhere, especially in the US along the North East Corridor route - or you could just adopt the Dutch approach to the problem, see the video embedded in this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=99085

Trowse is now seen as a bottleneck and the equipment to swing the bridge is broken, so a double-track replacement there also seems likely.

This installation is to test the beam in UK conditions and with the Class 800s, as it will be used in places like the Severn Tunnel. The basic system is well proven, with versions of the Furrer and Frey overhead conductor rail system in use in tunnels on high-speed lines in Europe for 10 years or so. A speed of 302kmh was reached in tests in Austria last December



http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/rigid-catenary-speed-record.html

Very interesting - cheers.

Seems I've overestimated the previous difficulties with swing bridge electrification.

 

[HowardGWR]

The nine-cars will be concentrated on the Bristol and Cardiff services, which are all under wires and where the demand is highest across the day. The bimodes will work some all-electric duties, notably to Swansea if you drop/pick up five cars at Cardiff, but in cases where you get beyond the wires, such as to Weston-super-Mare/Taunton, Gloucester/Cheltenham and the Cotswold Line, you can double up for the peak flows but most of the day a 315-seat train will be fine, or you can double up on the Oxford-London, Swindon-London, Bristol-London legs of journey, if you need more seats there.

Capacity will be used in a different way with IEP, eg more frequent London-Bristol services, shorter journey times allowing more work to be squeezed out of trains, etc, so not sure trying to compare what happens now with what will be happening when the major timetable changes take effect in 2017 and 2018, or five-car IEPs replacing eight-coach HSTs on some services, is possible. Not that this will stop people trying, as umpteen threads on this forum demonstrate...

Thanks very much. Apologies to Mods as I didn't know these threads were here. I have assumed this section was for rail vehicle fans rather than generalists. I can see I shall have to become more interested in sections I don't normally visit.

 

[snowball]

I know that previously they could only be electrified on a single line at relatively low speed, which is why the Selby diversion was built as well as why Trowse bridge was singled.

No, the Selby diversion was built because a new very large coal mine ( now closed due to major geological problems within it ) was being opened and there was a risk of subsidence affecting the ECML in the area.

It would have been a bit over the top to build a 15-mile diversion just to bypass one bridge.

However I think it was said in a previous thread that before the actual diversion was built or the coalfield was known about, a shorter diversion including a high-level bridge was considered, but for reasons of capacity rather than electrification. By bypassing Selby you also bypass the flat junctions with the Leeds-Hull line.