GWR Intercity EMU?

[Topological]

Thinking about all the problems with the IETs and the number of shortforms on the GWR mainline is there scope to make more of the services EMU?

IETs are based in Swansea, Bristol, London and presumably in the South West (sorry not my area).

However, could there be a fleet of EMU based near Bristol if wires were extended from Bristol Parkway into Bristol Temple Meads?

Logic here is that the IETs in Swansea could start the day with a run to Cardiff and then pick up the first diagrams of the day on Cardiff to Taunton/South West. These would be 5 cars.

Currently IETs start in Swansea to form what would otherwise be Cardiff to London trains. This gives a nice 30 minute frequency between Swansea and London in the morning. Under my suggestion there would still be a train every 30 minutes* to Cardiff and Newport, but London would only be hourly (as it is for the rest of the day).

The now uncovered Cardiff to London would become an EMU, starting the day in the Bristol area. Likewise there would be Bristol to London EMU. These would provide as much (or more) capacity than the IETs, and would mean that the fleet was not so stretched. IF such an EMU existed presumably Didcot calls could be removed from the IETs and then there would be less seats taken by passengers only travelling a short distance.

As far as I can see the only issue is that the EMU would not be as comfortable as an IET, or as "Intercity" feeling, but is that really an issue given the opinions some express about the IET?

In short are there options to run more of the GWR journeys with EMU?

(Note a light version of this proposal would work already, but the Bristol Temple Meads to London would have to start from Bristol Parkway.)

 

[edwin_m]

In August's Modern Railways, GWR MD Mark Hopwood is suggesting use of 387s or some successor EMU design to Bristol or Oxford if they are electrified.

 

[Benjwri]

I think the biggest problem with this is going to be capacity. I don’t really know about Cardiff flows, but Bristol to London is a very busy flow, and I’ve often seen 9 car IETs left standing. I don’t see a way a 387 can take that capacity without people standing for an unacceptable amount of time. In terms of seated capacity, 9 car IET is 647 seats, vs 446 on a 387. Even including standing capacity the IET is 911 vs 830. This would represent a significant drop in capacity on the route, not to mention eliminate seat reservations without a refurb. A 12 car 387 isn’t possible to fit at Bath without SDO, which would cause issues at such a major station. To give more capacity the types of EMU you’re talking about use standing capacity, which just isn’t feasible on an intercity route.

A number of services through Bristol also come from Weston and Taunton, do these links get cut?

presumably Didcot calls could be removed from the IETs and then there would be less seats taken by passengers only travelling a short distance.

What do you mean by passenger travelling a short distance? The only major calls at Didcot are Bristol, which they tried to cut to an hourly service, but due to political pressure had to reverse this decision last minute and are now left with the embarrassment of being half hourly one direction but not the other.

Didcot is an important interchange from the North and surrounding area. Very few local journeys ‘take up space’, especially from Reading, but plenty of people travel further West from there.

 

[nmsq]

387s already go as far as Cardiff. Although capable of being 12 car the curvature at Newport means that they are 8 car length. As a rule, they match the pet timings.

The key issues are the lack of first class and catering, along with few spare sets being available.

 

[dciuk]

IETs are based in Swansea, Bristol, London and presumably in the South West (sorry not my area).

Swansea; Bristol; London; Plymouth and Penzance

However, could there be a fleet of EMU based near Bristol if wires were extended from Bristol Parkway into Bristol Temple Meads?

Chippenham to Bristol Temple Meads would be more useful as London trains normally serve Parkway on the South Wales services and Temple Meads on the Bristol/Weston-Super-Mare services

Logic here is that the IETs in Swansea could start the day with a run to Cardiff and then pick up the first diagrams of the day on Cardiff to Taunton/South West. These would be 5 cars.

Seams reasonable

Currently IETs start in Swansea to form what would otherwise be Cardiff to London trains. This gives a nice 30 minute frequency between Swansea and London in the morning. Under my suggestion there would still be a train every 30 minutes* to Cardiff and Newport, but London would only be hourly (as it is for the rest of the day).

Presumably the Swansea to Cardiff morning/Cardiff to Swansea evening services could be timed to connect with the Cardiff to Paddington (and Paddington to Cardiff) services

The now uncovered Cardiff to London would become an EMU, starting the day in the Bristol area. Likewise there would be Bristol to London EMU. These would provide as much (or more) capacity than the IETs, and would mean that the fleet was not so stretched. IF such an EMU existed presumably Didcot calls could be removed from the IETs and then there would be less seats taken by passengers only travelling a short distance.

This could use Swindon based units to prevent additional electricfication being required

As far as I can see the only issue is that the EMU would not be as comfortable as an IET, or as "Intercity" feeling, but is that really an issue given the opinions some express about the IET?

Some people might think the IET is less comfortable. I have not travelled on a 387, so will reserve judgement. Lack of first class might be an issue, but Cardiff to London is not that long a journey and first class passengers would still have the option of the hourly Swansea to London service

In short are there options to run more of the GWR journeys with EMU?

Do GWR still have spare 387's available?

(Note a light version of this proposal would work already, but the Bristol Temple Meads to London would have to start from Bristol Parkway.)

Which would miss out Bristol Temple Meads; Bath Spa and Chippenham. It does not currently service Bristol Parkway, so if it had to be an EMU, it would make more sense to start it at Chippenham as at least that would only miss out 2 stations, but missing out Bristol Temple Meads and Bath Spa would not be acceptable as I would have thought they are the 2 most important on the route (both places are larger than Chippenham, and the other stops - Swindon; Didcot and Reading have alternative services to London)

 

[Benjwri]

it would make more sense to start it at Chippenham as at least that would only miss out 2 stations

Whichever genius decided where electrification was being cut back to didn’t actually electrify Chippenham station, the electrification stops a little bit before it, so you couldn’t actually get anywhere down the mainline past Swindon.

 

[dciuk]

Whichever genius decided where electrification was being cut back to didn’t actually electrify Chippenham station, the electrification stops a little bit before it, so you couldn’t actually get anywhere down the mainline past Swindon.

I did not realise that, but the only time I have been that way since electrification was in the dark on a Paddington to Plymouth service that ended up being diverted between Newbury and Westbury due to points or signal failure (I cannot remember which).

 

[Topological]

The fact that Chippenham station itself did not seem to be electrified was what ruled that out. I went that way for the first time ever on Monday and realised the wires got close but not actually into the station. Previously I assumed the limit of the wiring had been just past the junction with the Swindon to Bristol Parkway line.

I am very pleased to hear that GWR are looking seriously at their options. With so many EMU due to come off lease I hope that a sensible solution is reached. IF the wiring can be extended, even slightly, then even better.

I should say the same applies with Oxford and the use of IET there. My understanding though is that the savings are not as pronounced as being able to change Cardiff and Bristol over.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2023 ==

Swansea; Bristol; London; Plymouth and Penzance

Chippenham to Bristol Temple Meads would be more useful as London trains normally serve Parkway on the South Wales services and Temple Meads on the Bristol/Weston-Super-Mare services

Seams reasonable

Presumably the Swansea to Cardiff morning/Cardiff to Swansea evening services could be timed to connect with the Cardiff to Paddington (and Paddington to Cardiff) services

This could use Swindon based units to prevent additional electricfication being required

Some people might think the IET is less comfortable. I have not travelled on a 387, so will reserve judgement. Lack of first class might be an issue, but Cardiff to London is not that long a journey and first class passengers would still have the option of the hourly Swansea to London service

Do GWR still have spare 387's available?

Which would miss out Bristol Temple Meads; Bath Spa and Chippenham. It does not currently service Bristol Parkway, so if it had to be an EMU, it would make more sense to start it at Chippenham as at least that would only miss out 2 stations, but missing out Bristol Temple Meads and Bath Spa would not be acceptable as I would have thought they are the 2 most important on the route (both places are larger than Chippenham, and the other stops - Swindon; Didcot and Reading have alternative services to London)

Thanks for all the responses.

My understanding is that there are currently some Plymouth (and beyond) trains that stop at Bristol Temple Meads then run non-stop to Reading. I think these route through Bristol Parkway rather than through Bath. If they do then I am presuming that their Bristol Temple Meads passengers could then use the EMU which would stop at Swindon, whilst the IET on the Plymouth could run via Bath and Chippenham and pick up those two stops (theoretically becoming quieter if the timings of the EMU were still favourable for Paddington/Reading - Bristol Temple Meads). Thinking out loud now tells me I have added an extra train into Paddington which cannot be done so this only works if the EMU I added can be a westwards extension of the Didcot terminator.

Ultimately electrification through Bath to Bristol would release a lot of diesel IETs to the point that maybe even Cross Country could have some for services into the South West from the North East (being as that would also pass through other regions using IETs)

 

[dciuk]

The fact that Chippenham station itself did not seem to be electrified was what ruled that out. I went that way for the first time ever on Monday and realised the wires got close but not actually into the station. Previously I assumed the limit of the wiring had been just past the junction with the Swindon to Bristol Parkway line.

I am very pleased to hear that GWR are looking seriously at their options. With so many EMU due to come off lease I hope that a sensible solution is reached. IF the wiring can be extended, even slightly, then even better.

I should say the same applies with Oxford and the use of IET there. My understanding though is that the savings are not as pronounced as being able to change Cardiff and Bristol over.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2023 ==


Thanks for all the responses.

My understanding is that there are currently some Plymouth (and beyond) trains that stop at Bristol Temple Meads then run non-stop to Reading. I think these route through Bristol Parkway rather than through Bath. If they do then I am presuming that their Bristol Temple Meads passengers could then use the EMU which would stop at Swindon, whilst the IET on the Plymouth could run via Bath and Chippenham and pick up those two stops (theoretically becoming quieter if the timings of the EMU were still favourable for Paddington/Reading - Bristol Temple Meads). Thinking out loud now tells me I have added an extra train into Paddington which cannot be done so this only works if the EMU I added can be a westwards extension of the Didcot terminator.

Ultimately electrification through Bath to Bristol would release a lot of diesel IETs to the point that maybe even Cross Country could have some for services into the South West from the North East (being as that would also pass through other regions using IETs)

Unless there is engineering diversions, I thought all daytime Plymouth to London services now run via Castle Cary and are normally non stop between Taunton and Reading. I was not aware of any non stop services between Bristol Temple Meads and Reading, but have not checked the current timetable

 

[anthony263]

GWRs MD also said if the lines into Bristol TM were wired a battery emu could be used on the Cardiff to Portsmouth hbr service using batteries from Bathampton to Redbridge recharging off the 3rd rail or 25ac.

He also was looking.at a direct Bristol to Oxford service

 

[Snow1964]

This could use Swindon based units to prevent additional electricfication being required

Nothing is based at Swindon, just a stabling point, but of course can have 2 day circuits as electric units need less maintenance, and don't need refuelling

Some people might think the IET is less comfortable. I have not travelled on a 387, so will reserve judgement. Lack of first class might be an issue, but Cardiff to London is not that long a journey and first class passengers would still have the option of the hourly Swansea to London service

If this is a longer term plan, 10+ years. Then would be reasonable to alter seating configuration if required. GTR operates 387s with First Class

GWRs MD also said if the lines into Bristol TM were wired a battery emu could be used on the Cardiff to Portsmouth hbr service using batteries from Bathampton to Redbridge recharging off the 3rd rail or 25ac.

He also was looking.at a direct Bristol to Oxford service

With 3 trains an hour each way, (plus some freight), would make lot of sense to add section to Westbury, (or at least Trowbridge if wanted to avoid doing the extensive Westbury part).
Although I have heard that Westbury-Warminster really requires wires due to the gradient as thrashing up that will use lot of stored battery energy.

387s already go as far as Cardiff. Although capable of being 12 car the curvature at Newport means that they are 8 car length. As a rule, they match the pet timings.

Newport sees 9x26m IETs (and some 5+5 which are 260m long), so not really clear why 12x20m wont fit, or a short platform extension other end suffice if need to avoid a curved end. Is this one platform or all 4.

Whilst on subject of platforms, many Bristol area stations seem to have platforms 122-145m which is not really going to work with 80m EMUs (4x20m) as some services too busy to shorten, and double units won't fit. Probably going to need to do few metres of platform lengthening here and there unless going to source 5car or 6car EMUs. But could avoid gangwayed cabs if did this.

The key issues are the lack of first class and catering, along with few spare sets being available.

See above could be reconfigured if plan is to use EMUs for number of years

Not enough 387s spare, but it is published (in GTR business commitments 2023-2024) that DfT wants 21-30 extra units for GTR, thus GTR could always take higher number and release a few 387s

Other options appear to be a batch of 350s (being replaced on services from Euston), and apparently Greater Anglia is looking to sub-lease out upto 20 virtually new EMUs having ordered for pre-pandemic growth, but now not sure needs all of them.

Of course if do both lines to Bristol, and Didcot-Oxford then really in a position to look at it on a more national basis (not just GWR), cascade out aging 153, 155, 156 units, replacing them with 170s, replaced in turn with EMUs or surplus 5car bi modes from GWR etc.

If looking at it as a chance to cascade then really ought to be economic to source a new fleet of EMUs with batteries (a standard European design, let's not try reinventing wheel and experimenting with electrical bit), for services like Cardiff-Portsmouth, and if they are equipped with third rail for Redbridge-Portsmouth, might as well stick them on Gatwick-Reading services too, perhaps even operating some combined through to Basingstoke (since rebuilding of Reading not really stuck with lots of bay platforms either side of old main entrance building)

That does still leave question of if the 387s should really be an outer suburban and semi-fast configuration (as now) and if that is good enough for services to Bristol and Cardiff, or if really need an Express EMU, more like an IET ambience. But these services are less duration than Cardiff-Portsmouth and many Wessex services, and GWR deems those 3+ hour services ok to have suburban configuration. Got to be slightly wary that no going to reopen a debate similar to Portsmouth direct line where 450s and 444s operate, is it reasonable to mix IETs and 387s and charge same for what is clearly different experience.

Even GWRs fleet of 158s are near end of its life (already about 33 years old), much older than the first generation DMUs or mk1 hauled stock they replaced. The turbos are all 31+ years old too. Even if replace them in 5 years time (and most are leased to 2028) any replacement that has same lifespan will be around to 2060s, so a replacement that is a diesel (only) train is unlikely.

The more I think about it, almost seems as if the proposed new battery EMU and current 387 is going to be a bad compromise because they will be used on everything from local stoppers /busy commuter services to longer distance services with advance tickets and seat reservations, and one interior layout and configuration won't fit both. It becomes case of do you have fleet which does 2 jobs poorly, or create separate commuter and express EMU fleets.

 

[RobShipway]

GWRs MD also said if the lines into Bristol TM were wired a battery emu could be used on the Cardiff to Portsmouth hbr service using batteries from Bathampton to Redbridge recharging off the 3rd rail or 25ac.

He also was looking.at a direct Bristol to Oxford service

I am possibly adding 2 and 2 together with it being 5 rather than 4 here, but it does read to me that the GWR MD is looking for Class 379, which could be adapted to be dual voltage and have been used in the past to test battery power. Now, given what has happened to the class 319 to 769 would any TOC want to be going through those sort of changes with the class 379 units?

If looking at it as a chance to cascade then really ought to be economic to source a new fleet of EMUs with batteries (a standard European design, let's not try reinventing wheel and experimenting with electrical bit), for services like Cardiff-Portsmouth, and if they are equipped with third rail for Redbridge-Portsmouth, might as well stick them on Gatwick-Reading services too, perhaps even operating some combined through to Basingstoke.

When I read such comments I think just convert the class 379 or class 350/2 units. However, I don't think that there would be enough of either the class 379 or 350/2 units to replace all the GWR class 150, 158, 165 and 166 units. Yes, on some routes you have two units forming one train whether it is two class 158 units or a 166+165. You are talking about replacing 13 2 car and 5 3 car class 158, 16 3 car and 20 2 car class 165, 21 3 car class 166. Plus 20 2 car class 150 units. Even though 1 class 350 or 379 may replace two units, I do not think that there would be enough of either class of units.

 

[nmsq]

Nothing is based at Swindon, just a stabling point, but of course can have 2 day circuits as electric units need less maintenance, and don't need refuelling

If this is a longer term plan, 10+ years. Then would be reasonable to alter seating configuration if required. GTR operates 387s with First Class


With 3 trains an hour each way, (plus some freight), would make lot of sense to add section to Westbury, (or at least Trowbridge if wanted to avoid doing the extensive Westbury part).
Although I have heard that Westbury-Warminster really requires wires due to the gradient as thrashing up that will use lot of stored battery energy.


Newport sees 9x26m IETs (and some 5+5 which are 260m long), so not really clear why 12x20m wont fit, or a short platform extension other end suffice if need to avoid a curved end. Is this one platform or all 4.

Whilst on subject of platforms, many Bristol area stations seem to have platforms 122-145m which is not really going to work with 80m EMUs (4x20m) as some services too busy to shorten, and double units won't fit. Probably going to need to do few metres of platform lengthening here and there unless going to source 5car or 6car EMUs. But could avoid gangwayed cabs if did this.

See above could be reconfigured if plan is to use EMUs for number of years

Not enough 387s spare, but it is published (in GTR business commitments 2023-2024) that DfT wants 21-30 extra units for GTR, thus GTR could always take higher number and release a few 387s

Other options appear to be a batch of 350s (being replaced on services from Euston), and apparently Greater Anglia is looking to sub-lease out upto 20 virtually new EMUs having ordered for pre-pandemic growth, but now not sure needs all of them.

Of course if do both lines to Bristol, and Didcot-Oxford then really in a position to look at it on a more national basis (not just GWR), cascade out aging 153, 155, 156 units, replacing them with 170s, replaced in turn with EMUs or surplus 5car bi modes from GWR etc.

If looking at it as a chance to cascade then really ought to be economic to source a new fleet of EMUs with batteries (a standard European design, let's not try reinventing wheel and experimenting with electrical bit), for services like Cardiff-Portsmouth, and if they are equipped with third rail for Redbridge-Portsmouth, might as well stick them on Gatwick-Reading services too, perhaps even operating some combined through to Basingstoke (since rebuilding of Reading not really stuck with lots of bay platforms either side of old main entrance building)

That does still leave question of if the 387s should really be an outer suburban and semi-fast configuration (as now) and if that is good enough for services to Bristol and Cardiff, or if really need an Express EMU, more like an IET ambience. But these services are less duration than Cardiff-Portsmouth and many Wessex services, and GWR deems those 3+ hour services ok to have suburban configuration. Got to be slightly wary that no going to reopen a debate similar to Portsmouth direct line where 450s and 444s operate, is it reasonable to mix IETs and 387s and charge same for what is clearly different experience.

Even GWRs fleet of 158s are near end of its life (already about 33 years old), much older than the first generation DMUs or mk1 hauled stock they replaced. The turbos are all 31+ years old too. Even if replace them in 5 years time (and most are leased to 2028) any replacement that has same lifespan will be around to 2060s, so a replacement that is a diesel (only) train is unlikely.

The more I think about it, almost seems as if the proposed new battery EMU and current 387 is going to be a bad compromise because they will be used on everything from local stoppers /busy commuter services to longer distance services with advance tickets and seat reservations, and one interior layout and configuration won't fit both. It becomes case of do you have fleet which does 2 jobs poorly, or create separate commuter and express EMU fleets.

track curvature at Newport means only 8 doors on 387s. The doors being 1/3-2/3 is the issue.

10 cars also have to use SDO.

 

[Topological]

Unless there is engineering diversions, I thought all daytime Plymouth to London services now run via Castle Cary and are normally non stop between Taunton and Reading. I was not aware of any non stop services between Bristol Temple Meads and Reading, but have not checked the current timetable

My apologies. There are not any scheduled that way.

I boarded a train at Bristol Temple Meads going to Penzance which had come the Bristol Parkway route without stopping in May. Must have been a diversion.

Checking Real Time Trains there are only some very early trains that go the Bristol Parkway route.

I do not know to what extent an EMU going from Bristol Temple Meads via Bristol Parkway to complement the IET provision via Bath would actually help to make space on the Bath train (which would be the objective if 9/10 car IET cannot be reliably provided)

These EMU offer the chance to have more advances etc.

 

[Snow1964]

I am possibly adding 2 and 2 together with it being 5 rather than 4 here, but it does read to me that the GWR MD is looking for Class 379, which could be adapted to be dual voltage and have been used in the past to test battery power. Now, given what has happened to the class 419 to 769 would any TOC want to be going through those sort of changes with the class 379 units?

When I read such comments I think just convert the class 379 or class 350/2 units. However, I don't think that there would be enough of either the class 379 or 350/2 units to replace all the GWR class 150, 158, 165 and 166 units. Yes, on some routes you have two units forming one train whether it is two class 158 units or a 166+165. You are talking about replacing 13 2 car and 5 3 car class 158, 16 3 car and 20 2 car class 165, 21 3 car class 166. Plus 20 2 car class 150 units. Even though 1 class 350 or 379 may replace two units, I do not think that there would be enough of either class of units.

I am sure you mean 319 rather than 419 (the 10 Kent coast motor luggage vans)

But agree with the second part, even if you exclude the 150s used on Devon and Cornwall locals, where diesel is expected to continue for now, Any option of bringing in just 379s or just the soon to be spare 350s isn't going to cover everything.

Stuck with 2 problems:
1) their 80m length doesn't fit the stations with 122-145m platforms without causing problems on busy services, or requiring double units and platform extensions, or wastefully running 8cars when only need 6car
2) You end up replacing multiple types of DMU with multiple types of EMU, which generally can't be coupled to each other. And all of which really have the wrong configuration for Express services requiring seating reservations

The obvious solution is to obtain a batch of 5 or 6car (or twice as many fully gangwayed 3car) dual voltage BEMUs, for all the Wessex and Thames Valley routes, then reconfigure seating on the 387s into an Express EMU.

But in a way the obvious solution is all wrong because really need an electric express EMU that is 10-12cars long for London - Bristol /Cardiff and separately need BEMUs on the secondary & suburban routes, but 387s, 379s, 350s are neither of those requirements (not express, or a BEMU). So do you risk bodging batteries into existing EMUs, and even if do, still missing the ambience of electric IET replacement

 

[RobShipway]

I am sure you mean 319 rather than 419 (the 10 Kent coast motor luggage vans)

Post corrected, yes I did mean 319 rather than 419.

I am sure you mean 319 rather than 419 (the 10 Kent coast motor luggage vans)

But agree with the second part, even if you exclude the 150s used on Devon and Cornwall locals, where diesel is expected to continue for now, Any option of bringing in just 379s or just the soon to be spare 350s isn't going to cover everything.

Stuck with 2 problems:
1) their 80m length doesn't fit the stations with 122-145m platforms without causing problems on busy services, or requiring double units and platform extensions, or wastefully running 8cars when only need 6car
2) You end up replacing multiple types of DMU with multiple types of EMU, which generally can't be coupled to each other. And all of which really have the wrong configuration for Express services requiring seating reservations

The obvious solution is to obtain a batch of 5 or 6car (or twice as many fully gangwayed 3car) dual voltage BEMUs, for all the Wessex and Thames Valley routes, then reconfigure seating on the 387s into an Express EMU.

But in a way the obvious solution is all wrong because really need an electric express EMU that is 10-12cars long for London - Bristol /Cardiff and separately need BEMUs on the secondary & suburban routes, but 387s, 379s, 350s are neither of those requirements (not express, or a BEMU). So do you risk bodging batteries into existing EMUs, and even if do, still missing the ambience of electric IET replacement

That is where I think as you say you have to obtain either 5 or 6 car BEMU with the coaches the same length as the IET class 8xx units, but with doors at similar points to class 387 units or you need 12 car units with the coaches the same size as class 387 units, but operated as express units that can be used as BEMU possibly?

 

[Energy]

I am possibly adding 2 and 2 together with it being 5 rather than 4 here, but it does read to me that the GWR MD is looking for Class 379, which could be adapted to be dual voltage and have been used in the past to test battery power. Now, given what has happened to the class 319 to 769 would any TOC want to be going through those sort of changes with the class 379 units?

I doubt he wants any specific stock. Electrifying Bristol and changing to BEMUs would reduce GWR's operating costs and help with the regional fleet stock shortage.

 

[D365]

The Class 379 IPEMU trial from ~8-10 years ago is not relevant, as this was never intended for permanent fitment.

 

[RailWonderer]

A few weeks ago there were London to Plymouth trains via Bath, Bristol and Exeter and they were full and standing that passengers like myself were unable to board. I went via Westbury and Salisbury to Waterloo instead, adding another hour but guaranteeing myself a seat. That's the only way I would ever travel west in the summer on a weekend again.

GWR will need to, even without Exeter or Plymouth extensions, find more capacity and any stock they can get hold of like Voyagers or Meridians would be helpful until more electrification comes their way (which it likely won't for years to come). Forget about extra Aventras or EMUs generally for the time being.

 

[Irascible]

The route to Devon & Cornwall has been overcrowded for decades - even if you could free bimode IETs from Bristol by using EMUs is there even any space at Paddington to run more services into? and if there isn't, is there any at Waterloo?

 

[JonathanH]

The route to Devon & Cornwall has been overcrowded for decades - even if you could free bimode IETs from Bristol by using EMUs is there even any space at Paddington to run more services into? and if there isn't, is there any at Waterloo?

The operators have failed to accurately assess demand at the busiest times, but that applies to Bristol, South Wales, and the Cotswolds as well. How many trains would genuinely need a relief service if one could actually be run?

In theory, with the right amount of rolling stock it is straightforward to run trains to the South West in the path of the Exeter / Paignton stopper but by no means would it be necessary to do it year round, and there is a limit to the number of trains that can be run as you get further west.

I'm not sure what help Waterloo would be given there is no fast route out of there that would move the load.

 

[Benjwri]

I'm not sure what help Waterloo would be given there is no fast route out of there that would move the load.

I agree, even if there was capacity, which I don’t think there is, sending an IET to run diesel on the 3rd rail to Reading or Exeter from Waterloo at 75mph is an even greater waste of the IETs than the few services to Cardiff that could theoretically be replaced.

 

[paul1609]

The Class 379 IPEMU trial from ~8-10 years ago is not relevant, as this was never intended for permanent fitment.

Probably just as well as the batteries were apparently absolutely knackered after a few weeks test and press running.

 

[Irascible]

I agree, even if there was capacity, which I don’t think there is, sending an IET to run diesel on the 3rd rail to Reading or Exeter from Waterloo at 75mph is an even greater waste of the IETs than the few services to Cardiff that could theoretically be replaced.

The thought was to upgrade the WoE in general to lift some pressure from the south-west rather than try and cram more released IETs into Paddington if there's little capacity left, and definitely not send IETs to Waterloo ( would a 9 car even fit? ). I don't think it'll ever be quite as fast ( how much 100+ could you get out of that route, I wonder ) but it is a somewhat underutiilised corridor. There are three routes down here & still somehow things get over-full. Plymouth-Birmingham-<places> would be a decent place to release any Bristol area GWR IETs to if the load to London could be split more. Just a few billion here and there...

 

[RobShipway]

The thought was to upgrade the WoE in general to lift some pressure from the south-west rather than try and cram more released IETs into Paddington if there's little capacity left, and definitely not send IETs to Waterloo ( would a 9 car even fit? ). I don't think it'll ever be quite as fast ( how much 100+ could you get out of that route, I wonder ) but it is a somewhat underutiilised corridor. There are three routes down here & still somehow things get over-full. Plymouth-Birmingham-<places> would be a decent place to release any Bristol area GWR IETs to if the load to London could be split more. Just a few billion here and there...

I don't believe that IET's have been approved to run on third rail tracks and as you mention I don't believe there is the capacity to run into Waterloo. The only platforms that could possible take the IET's would be the old Eurostar platforms 20 - 24 at Waterloo.

 

[Master29]

I wonder and no doubt other also that it would not to have been a better idea for maybe 2 or 3 different franchises operating on what is a very overstretched GWR area network.

 

[paul1609]

I don't believe that IET's have been approved to run on third rail tracks and as you mention I don't believe there is the capacity to run into Waterloo. The only platforms that could possible take the IET's would be the old Eurostar platforms 20 - 24 at Waterloo.

I suspect there wouldn't be too much difficulty getting approval for IETS to run on the Southwestern, a 12 car class 395 (same family of trains)is 10 metres longer than a 9 car 801.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't believe that IET's have been approved to run on third rail tracks and as you mention I don't believe there is the capacity to run into Waterloo. The only platforms that could possible take the IET's would be the old Eurostar platforms 20 - 24 at Waterloo.

IETs have run quite happily under diesel power between Basingstoke and Eastleigh depot or works for quite a few years, so that rules out problems with the third rail specifically. There’s no significant reason I can think of why they can’t run a 9 car into any of the 240m platforms at Waterloo that have previously been used by HSTs.

Since the 2017 works the usable length of the former international platforms is only the standard 240m, the approach S&C was moved into the train shed, and the platforms were also shortened at the buffer stop end.

 

[Snow1964]

I wonder and no doubt other also that it would not to have been a better idea for maybe 2 or 3 different franchises operating on what is a very overstretched GWR area network.

That has been tried, originally had Thames Valley Trains, Wessex Trains and Wales and West.

Whichever genius decided where electrification was being cut back to didn’t actually electrify Chippenham station, the electrification stops a little bit before it, so you couldn’t actually get anywhere down the mainline past Swindon.

The fact that Chippenham station itself did not seem to be electrified was what ruled that out. I went that way for the first time ever on Monday and realised the wires got close but not actually into the station. Previously I assumed the limit of the wiring had been just past the junction with the Swindon to Bristol Parkway line.

I am very pleased to hear that GWR are looking seriously at their options. With so many EMU due to come off lease I hope that a sensible solution is reached. IF the wiring can be extended, even slightly, then even better.

Yes wires stop about mile east of Chippenham, but many masts were erected (but never been fitted out) for about 3 miles west of Chippenham too.

Ultimately electrification through Bath to Bristol would release a lot of diesel IETs to the point that maybe even Cross Country could have some for services into the South West from the North East (being as that would also pass through other regions using IETs)

As many trains terminate at both Bristol and Cardiff (and Oxford too), had the electrification been completed would have (and still would be) possible to have electric IETs. Originally would have included Swansea trains too (but extension there seems unlikely now)

However I suspect the huge growth in Devon and Cornwall, and on Cotswold line, along with the disposal of castle HSTs probably means GWR could utilise many itself to avoid the current crowding, and not give away many.

 

[dciuk]

That has been tried, originally had Thames Valley Trains, Wessex Trains and Wales and West.

Wessex Trains replaced Wales & West when it was split into 2 companies (The other being Wales & Borders). The 3rd franchise was Great Western Trains which ran the intercity services that are currently run by GWR