Nothing, but if you read before my post that you have quoted you will see that some where saying that 9-car trains where also needed on the Cotswolds line off-peak as well as all day to Bristol, Plymouth and Cardiff, yet when I have travelled along the Cotswold line previously when it was HST sets doing the route, barely 4 out of the 8 coaches where full. You also have to remember that if you have 9-car trains on the Cotwolds all day, then you will be needed to extend the platforms. That will only happen as per @Clarence Yard comment below:
They already run 9 car peak on those platforms. You'd only need to extend for 10 car services.
It isn't dependant on electrification.
The platform lengthening a few years ago was ostensibly to allow 2x5 IETs to run among other reasons. What remains to be done?
Sorry if I gave that impression (re. using a class 803 away from the wires), it was not my intent. What I am trying to do (as far as 803s are concerned) is argue for the following:
Thanks. So, assuming the additional (compared to today) electrification in points 1 and 2 above, the basic hourly pattern could look a bit like this (the 'base units' are the round trip time x tph, rounded up to the nearest integer):
| Frequency | Paddington To/From | Traction Type | Notes | Base Travel Time | Base Units |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1tph | Swansea | EMU (class 803) | 2hrs 50 (2.8333) | 6 | |
| 1tph | Cardiff | EMU (class 803) | 2hrs | 4 | |
| 1.5tph | Bristol Temple Meads | EMU (class 803) | 1hr 35 (1.5833) | 5 | |
| 1tph | Oxford | EMU (class 803) | 55mins (0.9166) | 2 | |
| 1tph | Cheltenham Spa | Bi-Mode (class 800/802) | 2hrs | 4 | |
| 0.5tph | Weston-Super-Mare | Bi-Mode (class 800/802) | Some continue to Exeter etc. | 2hrs 12 (2.2) | 3 |
| 1tph | Great Malvern | Bi-Mode (class 800/802) | Some short workings to Worcester, extensions to Hereford etc. | 2hrs 25 (2.4166) | 5 |
| 0.5tph | Exeter (semi-fast) | Bi-Mode (class 800/802) | Some continue to Paignton etc. | 2hrs 30 (2.5) | 3 |
| 0.5tph | Plymouth | Bi-Mode (class 800/802) | 3hrs 12 (3.2) | 4 | |
| 0.5tph | Penzance | Bi-Mode (class 800/802) | 5hrs 20 (5.3333) | 6 |
What about converting 800s to 803s, to release all the gensets under any given 800 so that they can all be used under bi-modes elsewhere? The way I see it:
A further complication is that, to make good use of many electric units, would need wires to Swansea and the Hitachi/Agility (whoever it is) depot there would mainly see only electric units (class 803) there in my scenario. Anyway, take either the 22 five-car class 802s or the 36 five-car class 800s, lengthen them all (half to nine-cars for GWR and the other half to 8 (if possible) or nine for XC) and stick all the gensets under the units for XC* leaving the newly-lengthened GWR nine-car sets as class 803s with no diesel gensets. The XC sets would have rather more gensets than the GWR/LNER class 800s/802s, but I'm assuming that XC (like EMR with the 810s) require higher off-wire performance.
This is one of the reasons I'm a bit keen to cut Carmarthen back to one train a day to/from Paddington. Having non-gangwayed units coupled together which divide on-route (or, potentially, call at certain short platforms) means some passengers effectively have an unadvertised and unplanned change of train somewhere in order to move to the correct part of the train before it splits. It's not so bad in the other direction (where the units join rather than spliting) as no passenger should need to move (except perhaps for a short platform) but really I think the aim should be for almost all trains to be gangwayed throughout. That means it's ok for a TOC to order something like a 377 with only 3 coaches because they can work in multiple but streamlined intercity stock doesn't have gangwayed cabs so please don't order them with portion working in mind.
Moving the loco-release line at Carmarthen back to allow a 9-car IET in would also increase the walking distance for passengers between the platforms since there is no footbridge anymore and passengers have to use a barrow crossing to move between platforms. More importantly, Carmarthen is much further back in the electrification queue so, even if the platform were sorted, I think I would still be suggesting cutting it back to one GWR train per day (increasing to 3 at weekends, including the summer SAT Pembroke Dock workings) so that more use could be made of 9-car class 803s between Swansea and Paddington.
It's not just IET - the railway (and indeed other transport matters) does indeed get rather stuck from time to time. Eg. when the Welsh Government froze their road-building programme for the review to be carried out they said that schemes which had 'diggers in the ground' would continue - however the contract had been 'signed' on at least one project just a few days before, there were no diggers anywhere near the ground at the time but the contract was there so work continued. Why would you scrap the GWR trains though? Yes they have issues but you'd have to buy out the 27.5yr (or whatever it was) IEP contract to anyway and we have them already so let's make the most of them - just buy out the contract (or use variations) to get the fleet we need. With a bit of luck there may be clauses in the contract for in-service refurbishments to at least allow replacement of the awful seats anyway.
To take full advantage of additional electrification (to Bristol, Oxford and Swansea in the first instance) rather than GWR continuing to run class 800/802 bi-modes on the same routes but 'under the wires' following additional electrification.
I would have thought any bi-mode units converted to EMU would need to be renumbered. After all, when the order for 21 class 801s (strange units that kindof are trying to be EMUs and bi-modes at the same time and fail to achieve either) for GWR became an order for 21 bi-modes instead they were delivered as class 800s. I don't work in the rail industry so don't know for sure, but I get the impression that class (and/or subclass) designations are used for diagraming. For example, when a temporary hybrid unit was made up with a 153 and half a 150 it was numbered as a 153 because if it had been numbered as a 150 it could have been sent somewhere where the 153 was out-of-gauge. Similarly, you would need to be able to tell the difference between an EMU and a bi-mode so that the EMU allocated to a service to Penzance before the wires get anywhere near there. You can't just have a common pool of class 802s if the diesel engines have been removed from some of them - you need to renumber the electric-only units into a different class.
You don't need a different class number for interior changes - for example Arriva Trains Wales didn't renumber their class 158s when they refurbished the fleet and replaced the seats. Similarly, you could presumably have inductive charging on some class 802s and not others - I don't think the Pendolinos are even getting a different subclass when they go through Avanti's refurbishment. As for having more diesel generators on a class 805, that is very interesting if true since I believe the 5-car class 800 and 802 units already have the maximum number of gensets (three) for a 5-car set from that design (I believe the driving cars have a lower floor with no room for a diesel generator underneath). The class 810s I think are planned to have four gensets, but they have a new bodyshell design (shorter vehicles) so there was an opportunity to make room for the additional genset while redesigning the bodyshell.
You seem confused about what an 801 is. It is an EMU with a single gen set which allows the train to limp out of the way if it fails or the wires are down. It also provides hotel power to the train in this situation to keep things like lighting, air con and toilets in use (useful when stranded). This genset is only used when absolutely needed.
An 805 is effectively 5 car 802 and an 807 is effectively an 7 car 801. I believe AWC went for 805 (5 car) and 807 (7 car) for no other reason than they could.
Hitachi charge a lot if the emergency engine is used. If IEP was done 5 years later it probably would have been a large battery rather than an engine.
805s are the same gensets but reduced to the normal 750hp IIRC to reduce wear, they don't need the extra performance.
Downside with converting to EMUs is without significant electrification you'd limit operations. GWR has imperfect fleet lengths, changing to EMUs would commit to these lengths long term.
Wasn't it consolidation in the manufacturers
There is a reason I put scrap in quotation marks. I don’t mean turn the trains into bean tins. I mean reuse them, but in a more sensible manner free of the current limitations, problems and restrictions.
Always been MTU. The 810s have 4 of them, each the uprated 986hp, to match the class 222 timings. The
Just as I thought.
I don't think I'm confused - you have described 801s and 803s to be exactly as I understand them. The only difference is that I refuse to call an 801 an EMU, because it does have the ability to limp along if the some scumbag steals the OHLE or there is a serious power cut in the power grid that supplies the OHLE. From an operational planning viewpoint an 801 might as well be an EMU, but from a technical/maintainance viewpoint there is a diesel engine to maintain and a fuel tank to fill up so technically it is a bi-mode but not useful as such because it is so slow in diesel mode.
The diesel engine will run out of fuel too at some point, and presumably 'hotel power' includes the toilets etc. so the batteries on the 803 will keep the passengers just as comfortable while stranded as the passengers on the 801. As far as I know the 801 is the only nominally 'electric' train (on the British network at least) which is able to move itself if the OHLE / 3rd rail is out of action. Anything similar like a class 73 or 88 is designed to run at least a little way on non-electrified routes. Therefore, in the event of an OHLE fault you will probably be stuck behind a 387 or something anyway.
Does that mean they have a single diesel genset to allow them to 'limp' along if the wires are gone?
I suspect the 800s and 802s being different classes may have something to do with the different contractrual arrangements (ie. the IEP train service provision deal for the 800s). Also, I understand the 800s were originally supposed to have smaller fuel tanks and the lower engine ratings etc. but the GWR ones had to be upgraded to class 802 spec (and I think there is still a difference - perhaps brake resistors?) due to the delayed electrification.
Which is why I propose dealing with both issues: increase electrification (Oxford, Bristol and Swansea (or equivalent) as a bare minimum before the first batch of conversions to EMU) and lengthen units (carrying out the lengthening and moving of gensets/genset-vehicles (whichever is easier) between sets at the same time so each unit only needs to be taken out of service once to do the job).
Until Swansea was dropped from the electrification programme, the Government at the time seemed happy to chop the Pembroke Dock services (which presumably would have resulted in Carmarthen-Paddington running just one per day Mon-Sat for the all year round). I assume the recent increase in GWR's weekday services to Carmarthen is a GWR initiative (as a response to Grand Union's open access plans, which I have not supported since they decided to run beyond the wires and order new 125mph bi-mode stock) and is not in GWR's contract with the Government. I certainly don't remember any comments regarding anything more than 1 train per day Mon-Sat (3 on Sundays) to Carmarthen being in the GWR franchise agreement last time it was re-franchised (obviously, when the wires to Swansea were cut, the Government finally committed to running the summer Saturday GWR trains to Pembroke Dock, which had previously been left out of IEP and provide an additional 2 calls each way at Carmarthen).
Feel free to call it what you like. Officially it is designated as an EMU.
They will be dead unless it’s switched off in which case no electric trains would be running
Extremely useful if it is used to get stranded passengers to an access point such as a station or do you think passengers should just have to sit and wait patiently for hours.
The batteries will run flat long before the fuel runs out. You don’t seem to like the fact that the 801 could potentially get passengers rescued a lot quicker than those sat on an 803 with flattening batteries.
There is always that risk so are you saying that trains shouldn’t be built with a self rescue mechanism because of that low percentage risk? Also an 801 could indeed be used to rescue those 387 passengers by ramping them across thanks to its self recovery mechanism or do you think they should just be left on a potentially dark train with no working air con or toilets?
So you admit that there is an advantage to the 801 with rescue genset but also speculate that there is no advantage in the vast majority of situations without facts to back that up (London - Peterborough is 76 miles). Indeed north of there 801’s mainly work on sections of the mainline where they only really interact with fellow 80x fleets along with various diesel classes all of which aren’t affected by the OHLE suffering a switch off.
A phrase that I've seen used several times (mostly in 'Modern Railways' magazine I think) by supporters of rail electrification is "an electric railway is a better railway, however you define better". The benefits of EMUs are generally considered to include reduced weight and reduced financial costs at most stages of the train's lifecycle (design, build, maintainance and fuel). It seems to me that these benefits are diminished if the unit is carrying one or more diesel engines, as is the case with a bi-mode or an 801. If we are going to say that a class 800 is an electric train then suddenly claims of 'EMUs are lighter and easier to maintain than equivalent DMUs' have to be qualified with 'EMUs, except class 801s, are lighter and easier to maintain than equivalent DMUs'.
Yes, I admit there is an advantage. Of course self-rescue is a nice-to-have; I guess my question is does it justify the reduced benefits of electric traction? As I said above, I'm not aware of any other rolling stock where this was seen to be worthwhile. Assuming that continues and, as I hope, electrification is rolled out then several of the 'various diesel classes' you mention will eventually be replaced by EMUs.
I don't think passengers should have to wait for hours; I just strongly suspect that in the event of disruption they will have to wait, regardless of whether the unit has a self-rescue capability or not. I'm just struggling to think of a suituation where self-rescue could actually be used:
It's not the self-rescue capability that I don't like, but the cost of it - I must admit I am going on gut feelings here but it feels like an 801 has 80%-99% of the drawbacks of a more-capable bi-mode (class 800/802) yet the 801 is useful in fewer suituations.
On an electric railway, which we should be moving towards, that feels like a big 'might' to me. Given the topic title includes 'GWR' you could have an electrified 'MetroWest' with EMUs. It doesn't necessarily have to be a 387 - could be an 803 or IC225, a class 92 on freight. I'm not sure how much of the ECML is 4-tracked - towards the north end you probably have ScotRail EMUs such as 380s or 385 too. Even an 801, depending on the nature of the issue, may be unable to move leaving following units held at danger.
Who set the standards prior to nationalisation? The 'Big Four' were already history when I was born, so I am quite probably mistaken, but when Britain's railways were nationalised wasn't the newly-formed British Railways able to run trains formed of a mix of coaches from each of the 'Big Four' from day one? Yes, some stock would have been air-braked, others vaccum braked and many wagons had only hand-operated brakes (some were effectively without brakes while moving) but wasn't the mechanical coupling already standardised across all stock? And could any air braked vehicle work with any other air braked vehicle (and similar between vaccum braked stock)?
I think that you will find that since the days of British Rail the RSSB has set out standards of how trains should be operated. Such as the Rolling Stock standards https://www.rssb.co.uk/standards/where-do-we-use-standards/rolling-stock
Yes, today I would expect it to be either the ORR or RSSB - but my question was who was responsible for interoperability before British Railways?