GWR Class 800

[JamesRowden]

So you are saying that these new trains are only going to operate between Paddington and Reading, oh that clears that up then, I thought they were going to work to Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Exeter, Plymouth, Penzance etc! :roll:

I mean the trains to these places are never full off peak are they, of course you will already know that having travelled on them quite frequently wont you!

Luckily all the commuters travel to Paddington from Reading and nobody commutes into Swindon, Bristol, Cardiff, Exeter, Plymouth etc do they, take for example the 1406 from PAD to PNZ which is an off peak train so will be a 5 coach set (in your world), have you seen the current 8 coach HST working that service when it leaves Plymouth at 1724?
No?
Well maybe you should because there are normally 2 or 3 hundred people standing in Standard class (they are standing in every coach through the saloons and vestibules), can you please tell me how they will all fit on a 5 coach 395GTI please!
If you do the sums there are not enough 9 coach sets (or 5 coach sets to double up) to cover everything that is currently busy so I look forward to seeing the headlines!

Through to London on the Berks and Hants Off-Peak there is presently generally only 11 carriages per hour formed of:

• 8-Carriage HST Intercity
• 3-Car Turbo Bedwyn
• (Infrequent additional 8-Carriage HST Slow Intercity)

This should be replaced by at least 19 carriages per hour:

• 5+5-Car AT300 Intercity
• 5-Car Class 800 Berks & Hants Semi-fast*
• 4-Car Class 387 Newbury
• 9-Car AT300 Slow Intercity*

*Unsure about the exact frequency of these services

From Paddington via Swindon the present off-peak service is:

• 4.5tph 8-Carriage HST

That should be replaced by:

• 3tph 9-Car Class 801
• 4tph 5-Car Class 800

That's 36 carriages replaced with 47 carriages, and the ability to add another 20 carriages at particularly busy times.

 

[The Ham]

How do you work that one out? The maths has been done on this thread previously, and there are sufficient AT-300s ordered for Great Western to allow each HST to be replaced by either a 9 or 10-car AT-300 formation, and enough 5-car units left over to replace the 180s on a one for one basis, too.

That's before allowing for the services which can be shortened (note not all off peak services as some read that as) not dies it take in to account the journey time savings which the new trains will achieve.

Nor does it account for the new 12 coach EMU's (110mph) which will be able to replace some of the HST's to places like Oxford.

It also don't take into account the possibility of having less spare coaches, as I have said before say previously 2 HST's were needed in case of unit failure at Paddington, they can be replaced by 3 units with 5 coach sets as if a 9 coach set fails then 2 units are used, which still leaves 1 unit in case a 5 coach unit or half a 10 coach train fails. In doing so there is a spare 5 coach unit.

Therefore even if the maths was off by a unit or two the above would more than offset that (not that anyone questioned the workings at the time). However, if the maths is correct then the above effectively increases the pool compared to the HST fleet.

As such the 80x fleet will (unless someone can show calculations different to that which has been posted previously) match the HST fleet in pure numbers and exceed it due to changes in the way that the 80x's can be used compared to the existing.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

And that which people forget - if passenger growth increases as predicted, or more than expected because of new trains and electrification, the franchise will generate more money and more trains and/or carriages can be afforded.

IEP is going to be in production for a number of years, there's no reason at all why we won't see lengthening, additional sets or a mixture of both. It's not like we're dealing with the sorts of niche train fleets which have plagued post privatisation Intercity operations - Class 175s, Class 180s, and even the Class 222s.

It might not be possible to always extend the diesel sets, depending on what happens with emissions legislation, but the electric sets should easily manage 10 or 15 years of production.

 

[The Ham]

And that which people forget - if passenger growth increases as predicted, or more than expected because of new trains and electrification, the franchise will generate more money and more trains and/or carriages can be afforded.

IEP is going to be in production for a number of years, there's no reason at all why we won't see lengthening, additional sets or a mixture of both. It's not like we're dealing with the sorts of niche train fleets which have plagued post privatisation Intercity operations - Class 175s, Class 180s, and even the Class 222s.

It might not be possible to always extend the diesel sets, depending on what happens with emissions legislation, but the electric sets should easily manage 10 or 15 years of production.

It's not generally forgotten (see the discussion over the Christmas period about possible 12 coach trains). Although those who generally don't like the 80x's were notable by their absence from that discussion.

 

[455driver]

How do you work that one out? The maths has been done on this thread previously, and there are sufficient AT-300s ordered for Great Western to allow each HST to be replaced by either a 9 or 10-car AT-300 formation, and enough 5-car units left over to replace the 180s on a one for one basis, too.

Yeah fair enough, but what is going to work the additional services to Bristol and Exeter etc?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And that which people forget - if passenger growth increases as predicted, or more than expected because of new trains and electrification, the franchise will generate more money and more trains and/or carriages can be afforded.

I cant see how the figures stack up to pay for this lot, never mind more units which probably wont be ordered until the crash protection regs have changed yet again for no real reason!

IEP is going to be in production for a number of years, there's no reason at all why we won't see lengthening, additional sets or a mixture of both. It's not like we're dealing with the sorts of niche train fleets which have plagued post privatisation Intercity operations - Class 175s, Class 180s, and even the Class 222s.

I thought these were going to be built at 2 (or is it 3) factories so they can all be built quickly, once that production is finished do you think they will be keeping the factories open 'just in case' DaFT decide to order 10 extra coaches 5 years after the last unit was built, just look at the problems building the extra bendidildo coaches and units, they were no longer compliant with the new regs and dispensations had to be applied for etc.

You sound about as confident as I am sceptical!

It might not be possible to always extend the diesel sets, depending on what happens with emissions legislation, but the electric sets should easily manage 10 or 15 years of production.

As far as I know all the GWR sets are bi-mode, there are no electric only sets now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Through to London on the Berks and Hants Off-Peak there is presently generally only 11 carriages per hour formed of:

• 8-Carriage HST Intercity
• 3-Car Turbo Bedwyn
• (Infrequent additional 8-Carriage HST Slow Intercity)

This should be replaced by at least 19 carriages per hour:

• 5+5-Car AT300 Intercity
• 5-Car Class 800 Berks & Hants Semi-fast*
• 4-Car Class 387 Newbury
• 9-Car AT300 Slow Intercity*

*Unsure about the exact frequency of these services

From Paddington via Swindon the present off-peak service is:

• 4.5tph 8-Carriage HST

That should be replaced by:

• 3tph 9-Car Class 801
• 4tph 5-Car Class 800

That's 36 carriages replaced with 47 carriages, and the ability to add another 20 carriages at particularly busy times.

So to disprove my point about services in the South West and Wales you quote figures for the London area, priceless! :roll:

 

[D365]

Yeah fair enough, but what is going to work the additional services to Bristol and Exeter etc?

Can't help but notice that you don't make a nod to the posting quoted below...

That's before allowing for the services which can be shortened (note not all off peak services as some read that as) not dies it take in to account the journey time savings which the new trains will achieve.

Nor does it account for the new 12 coach EMU's (110mph) which will be able to replace some of the HST's to places like Oxford.

It also don't take into account the possibility of having less spare coaches, as I have said before say previously 2 HST's were needed in case of unit failure at Paddington, they can be replaced by 3 units with 5 coach sets as if a 9 coach set fails then 2 units are used, which still leaves 1 unit in case a 5 coach unit or half a 10 coach train fails. In doing so there is a spare 5 coach unit.

Therefore even if the maths was off by a unit or two the above would more than offset that (not that anyone questioned the workings at the time). However, if the maths is correct then the above effectively increases the pool compared to the HST fleet.

As such the 80x fleet will (unless someone can show calculations different to that which has been posted previously) match the HST fleet in pure numbers and exceed it due to changes in the way that the 80x's can be used compared to the existing.

 

[JamesRowden]

So to disprove my point about services in the South West and Wales you quote figures for the London area! :roll:

The services which run between London and Plymouth via the Berks and Hants can be a mixture of 5+5 and 9 car trains and can offer a 2tph service. Lone 5-car sets, rather than a 5+5 or 9-car formations, can run west of Plymouth when they meet the demand. This improves the business case for a 1tph through service throughout the day between Penzance and Paddington. Lone 5-car sets can run relatively quiet runs between the South West and Paddington to improve the business case for running a 2tph service between the South West and Paddington for a greater proportion of the day.

The South Wales services could be operated as a 9-car and a 5+5-Car off-peak if demand requires it. That is 19 carriages per hour replacing 16 per hour. And the Cardiff Central service not stopping at Reading should reduce some of the demand upon that service. The potential use of 5-car trains on evening services between South Wales and Paddington would increase the business case for running the 2tph service for a greater proportional of the day (as in a day includes the night).

 

[455driver]

Can't help but notice that you don't make a nod to the posting quoted below...

That's because I dont understand the point he is trying to make with his 'spare sets' here, there and everywhere!

 

[Dave1987]

As far as I know all the GWR sets are bi-mode, there are no electric only sets now.

So to make up for their massive balls up with the electrification they have changed the order to all bi-modes at yet more cost? This is priceless! ANY other project would have been cancelled by now but because the DFT ordered these trains and the politicians can't be embarrassed they have continued to throw more and more money at it. They must really really want to keep their voters happy in the South West. They will have to cram as many people as possible into every train just to keep up with the payments.

 

[The Ham]

That's because I understand the point he is trying to make with his 'spare sets' here, there and everywhere!

The point I was making was that we know that the 80x's replace like for like the HST feet and 180 fleet.

Yes there will be increases in the number of services (which require more sets), but this will be offset by the improvements in stock useage (less spare units needed, faster journey times, shorter units on services which don't need full length trains all the time, etc).

The argument tends to be from those opposed to IEP that there will not be enough long units/trains to cover the busy services, however none of them have shown that this is the case. They just keep saying that there's not going to be enough without showing why they think this when those who are supportive/tolerate the project have shown that there are enough to replace every HST with a long unit/train.

Therefore, it doesn't matter what you understand/don't understand about my posts about how the 80x's will be able to better utilised than the HST's when the question is fairly straightforward.

How, given that there are the same number of long trains/units to replace all the HST's, come there are not going to be enough 80x's?

A part answer to that has been given in that there are going to be extra services. This leads to the question, how many extra units is this likely to require?

Once this is known then others can work out how those extra units can be released by the spare sets I have been talking about. At that time I will try and explain better my points.

 

[sprinterguy]

So to make up for their massive balls up with the electrification they have changed the order to all bi-modes at yet more cost?

Personally, I haven't actually seen this confirmed anywhere (happy to be corrected if I've missed something though).

 

[Haydn1971]

So to make up for their massive balls up with the electrification they have changed the order to all bi-modes at yet more cost?

No, they have rearranged the delivery so that the bi-modes are delivered first, followed by the EMU's.

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, the bi-modes have always been first. The electrics were due to come in from March 2018.

No official decision has yet been made public but the current working assumption is that all the electrics will be bi-modes otherwise they will be effectively useless on GW without a massive timetable re-write.

The introduction of all sets (already complicated by the mandatory TARA maintenance requirements) was designed to fit into the existing (2017) diagram structure so the more flexible bi-mode introduction is fairly secure.

Making the electric sets bi-mode will actually make that introduction plan work more efficiently than originally envisaged.

 

[The Ham]

That's because I understand the point he is trying to make with his 'spare sets' here, there and everywhere!

OK, simple one first; current journey times by HST's to Cardiff are up to 2 hours 10 minutes, meaning to run two trains per hour the minimum number of units is likely to be 10 (allowing for some layover time - 40 minutes) based on a 4 hour 20 minutes of journey time (i.e. Paddington to Cardiff and back again).

After electrification and 80x's journey times are due to be 20 minutes quicker (each way), therefore to run the same frequency the minimum number of units is likely to be 9 based on a 3 hour 40 minutes of journey time and 50 minutes of layover time (therefore even if the layover time above is too short with the new system there is an extra 10 minutes to play with).

Likewise Bristol TM to Paddington is currently 1 hour 45 minutes, with an expected journey time of 1 hour 25 minutes. Current stock requirements of about 8 (3 hours 30 minutes of journey time and 30 minutes of layover time). Future stock requirements 7 (2 hours 50 minutes of journey time and 40 minutes of layover time).

That means that less trains are needed to run the same number of services (OK, only one on each of those journeys), but that is two extra units (or pair of units) which can be used to increase the frequency of other services.

The next is also fairly straightforward as, although journey time savings to Oxford are minimal (6 minutes and so are unlikely to free up any extra 80x's) these are likely to see more 12 coach 110mph EMU's instead of 80x's (due to the extra capacity and minimal reduction over the current journey times) which then means that there are more 80x's can be used elsewhere. Assuming 1 train per hour switches then on 2 hours of journey time plus 30 minutes of layover that frees up 5 units/trains to be used elsewhere. Even 1 train every 2 hours would still free up a minimum of 2.

Therefore just on the above (i.e. no shortening of any existing services) there are between 4 and 7 extra 80x's to be used elsewhere (at the higher end that could be enough to double the frequency between London and Bristol TM whilst still being all full length trains).

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I cant see how the figures stack up to pay for this lot, never mind more units which probably wont be ordered until the crash protection regs have changed yet again for no real reason!

The AT300 order (rather than the IEP order) is very competitively priced and has additional purchase options available, there's no reason to assume add on orders or extensions for IEP would necessarily add to the existing pricing mechanism. It may, sadly, mean that we see more 2 x 5 car units than 1 x 9 car units, as an example, with some coming from the IEP contract and others from a conventional ROSCO leasing contract.

I thought these were going to be built at 2 (or is it 3) factories so they can all be built quickly, once that production is finished do you think they will be keeping the factories open 'just in case' DaFT decide to order 10 extra coaches 5 years after the last unit was built, just look at the problems building the extra bendidildo coaches and units, they were no longer compliant with the new regs and dispensations had to be applied for etc.

You sound about as confident as I am sceptical!

The AT300 family has been designed for a sensible production span, and they're still winning contracts and being considered for others. I'd expect the AT300 unit to be available to order for at least 10 years and perhaps closer to 15 years.

The crash regulations and other changes have hopefully settled down now, Bombardier have managed nearly 17 years with the same cab and basic bodyshell design, giving it periodic minor updates. Siemens managed to keep the basic Class 350/450 design in production for 12 years, so it's perfectly achievable to give trains the potential to remain in production for a number of years, and starting at the latest crash regulations with a good product, we don't believe it will give Hitachi any real problems undertaking periodic updates to crash structures.

Siemens appear to have fallen foul of the most recent changes, but have successfully designed updates for the Class 700 fleet, which means the more recent orders for SWT and GTR can share the same basic cab and meet the newest crash regulations.

It's not specifically about cabs - they can be different if necessary, it's about the coupler, as long as the computer system is compatible and the coupler at the same height, the cab structures can be completely different. That's where modern technology really helps, with the electrical connection box being little more than a giant RJ-45 ethernet plug joining the computers on both trains together.

As far as I know all the GWR sets are bi-mode, there are no electric only sets now.

As discussed, not actually confirmed. It may be the case that delivery of electric units is held back, that additional bi-mode units are ordered and then cascaded away from the franchise elsewhere when electrification completes.

 

[sprinterguy]

No, the bi-modes have always been first. The electrics were due to come in from March 2018.

No official decision has yet been made public but the current working assumption is that all the electrics will be bi-modes otherwise they will be effectively useless on GW without a massive timetable re-write.

Just conjecturing here, but as the West of England AT-300 sets are being built in Japan concurrent with the Government procured GWML sets being built at Newton Aycliffe, is it possible that the former might enter service on the GWML at first? Their fully rated power units would certainly be a boon if a decent length of the GWML will initially remain unwired.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Just conjecturing here, but as the West of England AT-300 sets are being built in Japan concurrent with the Government procured GWML sets being built at Newton Aycliffe, is it possible that the former might enter service on the GWML at first? Their fully rated power units would certainly be a boon if a decent length of the GWML will initially remain unwired.

They're being built in Italy now, all changed when Hitachi completed the Ansaldo takeover.

GWR need an alternative to around 21 x 9 car electric sets, so either 21 x 9 car bi-mode sets, or 42 x 5 car bi-mode sets.

The AT300 (Class 802) order would provide 7 x 9 car units and 22 x 5 car units, which would mean even with that order delivered out of sequence, there's a deficit of around 6 x 5 car bi-mode units needed to cover for the Class 801 9 car units which can't run due to lack of wiring.

VTEC want to keep 6 x IC225 sets, at 7 carriages in length, because they were unable to reach agreement with Agility Trains for 6 x 9 car electric sets (the units need to be 7 car to match IEP timings and not screw with train paths, longer IEP sets would be better).

The possibility exists of Hitachi building another 6 x 9 car bi-mode sets, using them to plug the gap at GWR, and to divert 6 x 9 car electric sets from GWR to VTEC, allowing them to remove their remaining IC225 sets from service, or doing a more complex swap so VTEC gets the 6 x 9 car bi-mode units. That way GWR only ends up with 6 x 9 car bi-mode units more than it was expecting, rather than 21.

 

[The Ham]

As discussed, not actually confirmed. It may be the case that delivery of electric units is held back, that additional bi-mode units are ordered and then cascaded away from the franchise elsewhere when electrification completes.

Also the extra lease costs for the extra engines are unlikely to be that high given that they are designed to be removed from the bi-modal units once electrification has happened.

It could even be possible (given that Swansea wasn't expected to be wired up when the IEP contract was signed) that the extra mileage accrued due to electrification running late is offset (at least in part) by lower millage rates later on by running under the wires to Swansea.

Of course the new engines for the AT300 order could be used within the IEP order and then swapped over to the new trains in depot once they are delivered, with the IEP engines swapped with the AT300's from time to time to provide a balanced engine usage across the fleets.

Given the modular design of the trains it means that there are ways to keep the costs low for what could otherwise be an expensive problem. Just imagine if the IEP order was for class Pendolinos and locos, the lack of electrification could have been an expensive problem to resolve!

 

[Clarence Yard]

The GW AT300 sets may well be part of the solution but they only appear from late May 2018 onwards.

3 of those sets (the 9 car version) were intended to go on core GWML duties anyway as the IEP fleet couldn't replace all of the GWML HST fleet on the 2017 diagrams (which roughly replicate the current service) as nearly all the 5 cars had to be doubled up to cope with the train loadings. Also the TARA maintenance windows are more intrusive (and depot specific) than what occurs with the HST fleet.

Government procurement rules are, apparently, limiting the decision on the electrics to procuring "as is" or as bi-mode.

 

[455driver]

So to make up for their massive balls up with the electrification they have changed the order to all bi-modes at yet more cost? This is priceless! ANY other project would have been cancelled by now but because the DFT ordered these trains and the politicians can't be embarrassed they have continued to throw more and more money at it. They must really really want to keep their voters happy in the South West. They will have to cram as many people as possible into every train just to keep up with the payments.

Funnily enough most passenger wanted the HSTs to be done up but it was a political decision to buy these vanity project trains, I reckon a lot of people are going to be disappointed when they have to give up their HST for an IEP!

 

[sprinterguy]

I reckon a lot of people are going to be disappointed when they have to give up their HST for an IEP!

Yeah, just imagine all those people who are going to be OUTRAGED when they find that they have a faster, more frequent (depending on location) service, can get a seat rather than having to stand, and don't have to lean out of a window to grasp a grubby door handle in order to leave the train.

 

[Dave1987]

Yeah, just imagine all those people who are going to be OUTRAGED when they find that they have a faster, more frequent (depending on location) service, can get a seat rather than having to stand, and don't have to lean out of a window to grasp a grubby door handle in order to leave the train.

Faster - that is very very questionable considering the electrification won't be complete and IEP can't keep the timings on the bi-mode! Yeah and instead of grabbing a grubby door handle they will push a grubby button. Slam doors are of the past though. Be able to get a seat? Again that's something that's questionable with the amount of growth in passenger numbers needed to pay for the damn things.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
With regards to the electric IEP there is one thing for certain, the politicians will choose the option that causes them least embarrassment.

Considering NR is broke, the cost of electrification is currently about 4 times more expensive than first estimated. The politicians will almost certainly go for the option of making all the IEP order bi-modes. That way they are spared the political embarrassment of brand new trains sat doing nothing. It costs them nothing as all the extra cost is put on the TOC through higher leasing costs and the TOC takes all the risks of being able to pay those leasing costs. They then turn around to NR and tell them they have longer to complete the electrification to reduce the costs. Hitachi are let off their stringent reliability clauses because the engines will all need to run at full power. So the Politicians will get to take all the credit for introducing brand new trains without the Govt spending a single penny extra.

One thing about politicians is they don't like to be embarrassed, that's why the electrification has been allowed to continue on even though the costs are spiralling out of control.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Given the modular design of the trains it means that there are ways to keep the costs low for what could otherwise be an expensive problem. Just imagine if the IEP order was for class Pendolinos and locos, the lack of electrification could have been an expensive problem to resolve!

The costs wouldn't have been any different. Just the location of attaching and detaching the loco would have been different. The current situation is actually extremely expensive as the original contract with Hitachi is out of the window along with all those strict reliability requirements. Hitachi can almost name their price because is it the DFT who are changing the terms of the original agreement.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The GW AT300 sets may well be part of the solution but they only appear from late May 2018 onwards.
Government procurement rules are, apparently, limiting the decision on the electrics to procuring "as is" or as bi-mode.

A TPE order for AT300s might give First the scope to build electric versions (for GWR, when fully wired) and divert the previously-built bi-modes (converted from electric-only) to TPE.
Or some similar project engineering.
The trouble is the different financing/ownership of the various builds.

 

[Dave1987]

Also the extra lease costs for the extra engines are unlikely to be that high given that they are designed to be removed from the bi-modal units if electrification is ever completed.

Changed that for you. I doubt the full route will be electrified within the life of these trains. The costs are too high and the politicians have an excuse not to press ahead with it now they have this bi-mode idea fully stuck in their heads.

 

[sprinterguy]

Faster - that is very very questionable considering the electrification won't be complete and IEP can't keep the timings on the bi-mode!

A temporary problem. The bigger issue here is the delay in GWML electrification rather than the trains themselves (a fleet of pure EMUs would be completely grounded in this situation), however it is embarrassing that the Bi-modes are unable to keep time over the core GWML when on diesel mode, despite hefting around such big, meaty power units. Does make them seem a bit pointless.

Yeah and instead of grabbing a grubby door handle they will push a grubby button.

There's a lot less of the hand in contact with a push button than a handle though, especially those on HSTs which often require a good hard pull. At least it gets rid of the leaning out the window bit, at any rate.

Be able to get a seat? Again that's something that's questionable with the amount of growth in passenger numbers needed to pay for the damn things.

Just as well that the new trains have more seats (in the formations they are expected to be operating in where those seats are needed most) than those they are replacing to start with, then.

The costs wouldn't have been any different. Just the location of attaching and detaching the loco would have been different.

If only a small number of diesel locos for off-wires working had been proposed then that would likely have caused major issues in terms of sourcing sufficient locos for frequent longer distance working. I would think that their ability to keep to time would be even poorer than that of the Bi-mode IEPs, too. No idea if this would be more expensive to resolve than the present GWML electrification farce, but at least by the expensive re-jigging of Bi-mode trains to suit a resolution of sorts is available in the situation that we have.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Changed that for you. I doubt the full route will be electrified within the life of these trains. The costs are too high and the politicians have an excuse not to press ahead with it now they have this bi-mode idea fully stuck in their heads.

Electrification will be completed - that's why we're pressing on with TransPennine, Midland Mainline and obviously the Great Western schemes, that's why work has been GOBLIN started properly over Christmas, why the Chase Line continues, why Transport Scotland have been presented with electrification options for 2019-2029, why Bromsgrove starts later this year, why every new structure and almost every bit of signalling kit that goes in takes into account a 25kV OLE system being installed.

The reality is most of the money needing to be spent has been spent, grid connections are in place, transformer and sectioning equipment has been ordered and delivered, masts, portals and signalling gantries are orders and most built, bridges and footbridges ordered and built, the signalling system which is the root cause for the majority of the cost over run is life expired and needs dug out and replaced in any case.

The cancellation of GWEp now (not that the really costly bit of it can be cancelled since London to Reading is tied in with CrossRail) would be akin to stopping building a new car when it just needs the wheels fitted.

 

[The Ham]

The costs wouldn't have been any different. Just the location of attaching and detaching the loco would have been different. The current situation is actually extremely expensive as the original contract with Hitachi is out of the window along with all those strict reliability requirements. Hitachi can almost name their price because is it the DFT who are changing the terms of the original agreement.

...let me get this straight the cost of loco hauling a train doesn't cost any more if you have to drag them around for further, even if the loco is running for 2 hours of a 3 hour journey rather than for 1 hour of a 3 hour journey and you can still provide the same frequency of service. Even if extra new locos were required for a short period of time to cover it. Well if that is true then it's no wonder everyone wants to go back to having loco hauled trains rather than MU's!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Changed that for you. I doubt the full route will be electrified within the life of these trains. The costs are too high and the politicians have an excuse not to press ahead with it now they have this bi-mode idea fully stuck in their heads.

Cancelling the electrification which has been announced for the GWML would be political suicide for anyone who tried it.

 

[sprinterguy]

Cancelling the electrification which has been announced for the GWML would be political suicide for anyone who tried it.

Do the fortunes of the Cardiff - Swansea section still hang in the balance? I lose track with all the stop-start activity that has gone on in recent months. I could see political machinations resulting in electrification going no further west than Cardiff.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Do the fortunes of the Cardiff - Swansea section still hang in the balance? I lose track with all the stop-start activity that has gone on in recent months. I could see political machinations resulting in electrification going no further west than Cardiff.

I rather hope not, given we've finished wiring Maliphant depot...

 

[sprinterguy]

I rather hope not, given we've finished wiring Maliphant depot...

Curtailment unlikely then, good to know.