IEP and the Cotswold line

[Monkey Magic]

There was a recent discussion in the Cotswold Line Group's newsletter about what will replace HSTs on the line.

The current timetable has around 14 services (all the Hereford services and all the rush hour services) as HST.

By Oxford the rush hour 8 coach HST's tend to be standing room only.

As far as I can tell the bi-mode IEP for the Great Western lines are going to be 5 car.

So I am struggling to work out how they intend to work the line with shorter trains without having massive over-crowding problems.

There seem to be a number of barriers to potential solutions:

- can't run in multiple - because of the short platforms on the line + there was a comment in Modern Railways that they can't run in multiple because the arrangement of the pantographs will cause problems between airport junction and paddington.

- can't increase the frequency because of the single track

- can't allow a loco-drag of a 9 car IEP

- The suggestion in the newsletter was for the continued use of refurbished HSTs but then you wonder what is the point of having bi-mode if you can't use on most lines because the formations are too short.

 

[Goatboy]

None of that matters, all that matters is shiney new train, because newer is always better.

 

[tbtc]

As far as I can tell the bi-mode IEP for the Great Western lines are going to be 5 car.

So I am struggling to work out how they intend to work the line with shorter trains without having massive over-crowding problems.

There seem to be a number of barriers to potential solutions:

- can't run in multiple - because of the short platforms on the line + there was a comment in Modern Railways that they can't run in multiple because the arrangement of the pantographs will cause problems between airport junction and paddington

The plan was for ten coach (i.e. 260m) trains at the London end of the route with five coach (130m) west of Oxford (and on the Bristol to Weston section etc) AFAIK.

News to me if IEP can't work in multiple.

 

[Monkey Magic]

In 'Informed sources' there was a line that the pantographs can not be closer than 80 metres and run above (I think) 80 mph between airport junction and paddington because of the wave motion that the pantographs will set up on the ohle.

5 coaches west of Oxford is going to be a hell of a squeeze if there is no increase in frequency.

I am surprised that more has not been made of the decision to not have 8 car bi-mode as originally proposed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Surely it should be possible for the trains, when working in multiple, to run with only one pantograph in the consist raised, with power supplied to the other set through the coupler? Indeed this often occurs to me whenever I hear of issues with pantographs in close succession.

 

[The Ham]

A lot of this has been covered in other threads. Basicly there is the possibility that whoever is running the franchise has the option to alter the configeration of the lengths of the units for delivery (I'm assuimng that this is as long as the total number of coaches and engines doesn't increase).

This could mean that rather than 2x bimodal 5 coach trains and a 9 cocach electric they could take 2 of the 3 engines from each of the 5 bimodals and make them electric and add them to the 9 coach electric change it to a bimodal.

With a small fleet of 9 coach bimodals it would then overcome the problem of lack of capacity using just 5 coach trains.

Alternitivly it could well be that the trains run doubled up and by using technoligy similar to that being used on the Reading-Waterloo line that the doors only the correct doors open at stations too short to take the full 260m length.

As there shouldn't be any reason that electric trains can't run in multipul formations at speed. The most given reason by some is that there isn't a way between the two parts of the train, however many trains run like this with no problems, so why would IEP be any different?

 

[jimm]

Alternitivly it could well be that the trains run doubled up and by using technoligy similar to that being used on the Reading-Waterloo line that the doors only the correct doors open at stations too short to take the full 260m length.

The problem on the Cotswold Line is that all the platforms at the intermediate stations can only take five coaches, or fewer, with the exception of the Worcester-bound platform at Kingham, which takes six - which is why GW franchise bidders clearly told DafT at thje pre-qualifying stage that longer sets are going to be needed (given that some of the peak HSTs run full or near-full for parts of their journeys west of Oxford now) and why the possibility of formations other than five-car bi-mode and nine-car electric was then mentioned by DafT in the GW invitation to tender.

Trying to run more trains in the peak isn't really realistic - you might squeeze one in somewhere - but the single-line between Charlbury and Oxford is pretty stretched now on weekday mornings, and even a big timetable recast post-electrification is unlikely to change that state of affairs, so a number of longer bi-modes look the only sensible option.

And the same issues of platform lengths apply on the route to Gloucester and Cheltenham via Kemble and Stroud, where peak HSTs are pretty busy too. At Stonehouse the platforms are all of 50m long!

 

[Stats]

There seem to be a number of barriers to potential solutions:

- can't run in multiple - because of the short platforms on the line + there was a comment in Modern Railways that they can't run in multiple because the arrangement of the pantographs will cause problems between airport junction and paddington.

All IEP trains are required to be capable of multiple working with any IEP type in passenger service of 2 IEPs or a maximum length of 312m. When an IEP is operating with 2 pantographs raised on any part of the GWML between Paddington and Airport Junction the requirement is that they must be capable at operating at 100mph or the speed at which the operation is compatible with the OHLE, whichever is higher.

 

[BestWestern]

I believe the point being made is that multiple working on this particular route would be difficult because the platforms are five coaches long, and the train would be formed of two five coach sets with no through gangway connection. Thus meaning the second set is unuseable save for some form of very convoluted stopping arrangements.

Sadly, it does seem depressingly likely that IEP will be a bit of a cockup. Five coach trains on intenisve intercity routes has been tried before, and didn't work. More services is good, but running them with shorter trains is not good. DfT need to think on and run more services but with larger trains, thus planning for the future and saving the inevitable headache in ten years time when trains on the Great Western are as bad as they are now on the Cross Country corridor. I only hope that the displaced HSTs are put to use somewhere so that they can be eventually brought back, as will almost certainly end up being necessary.

 

[jimm]

I believe the point being made is that multiple working on this particular route would be difficult because the platforms are five coaches long, and the train would be formed of two five coach sets with no through gangway connection. Thus meaning the second set is unuseable save for some form of very convoluted stopping arrangements.

Sadly, it does seem depressingly likely that IEP will be a bit of a cockup. Five coach trains on intenisve intercity routes has been tried before, and didn't work. More services is good, but running them with shorter trains is not good. DfT need to think on and run more services but with larger trains, thus planning for the future and saving the inevitable headache in ten years time when trains on the Great Western are as bad as they are now on the Cross Country corridor. I only hope that the displaced HSTs are put to use somewhere so that they can be eventually brought back, as will almost certainly end up being necessary.

Have you actually absorbed the point I have now made several times in various threads that the GW franchise bidders have clearly made the point that five-car trains won't work in some cases and that DfT did recognise the possibility of formations other than five-car? I posted this yet again, only yesterday, just up this thread.

 

[Rhydgaled]

By Oxford the rush hour 8 coach HST's tend to be standing room only.

As far as I can tell the bi-mode IEP for the Great Western lines are going to be 5 car.

Yes, in the published plans (admittedly from some time ago but we don't know if DfT have really seen sense or not) are for 8 coach IC125s to be replaced by 5-car IEPs. Shear stupidity in my view to order any 5-car IEPs (or any Intercity train for that matter) at all. A mix of 7-car and 9-car, or 8-car and 9-car, sets might work.

So I am struggling to work out how they intend to work the line with shorter trains without having massive over-crowding problems.

I don't think they can. They are nick-named DaFT for a reason.

The suggestion in the newsletter was for the continued use of refurbished HSTs but then you wonder what is the point of having bi-mode if you can't use on most lines because the formations are too short.

Indeed, DaFT. Also, you can't use them on the Paddington to Pembroke Dock service either due to no guage-clearance for IEP trains west of Carmarthen. What are they intending that route to be worked with, IC125s? Where's the point in bi-mode IEP there?

The plan was for ten coach (i.e. 260m) trains at the London end of the route with five coach (130m) west of Oxford (and on the Bristol to Weston section etc) AFAIK.

News to me if IEP can't work in multiple.

I assume they should be able to work in multiple on the mainline, but as said above the plans suggest a drop from 8 coaches now to 5 west of Oxford under IEP, providing insufficent capacity west of Oxford.

In 'Informed sources' there was a line that the pantographs can not be closer than 80 metres and run above (I think) 80 mph between airport junction and paddington because of the wave motion that the pantographs will set up on the ohle.

4x26metres = 104metres. Since this is over 80 metres, two five car sets should have their pantographs more than 80 metres apart.

there is the possibility that whoever is running the franchise has the option to alter the configeration of the lengths of the units for delivery (I'm assuimng that this is as long as the total number of coaches and engines doesn't increase).

This could mean that rather than 2x bimodal 5 coach trains and a 9 cocach electric they could take 2 of the 3 engines from each of the 5 bimodals and make them electric and add them to the 9 coach electric change it to a bimodal.

My opinion, as stated above, is a small number of 7 or 8 car bi-modes along with a larger fleet of the 9-car 'electrics' which in my opinion should not have the emergency diesel engine (unless the wires east of airport junction are going to be ripped down by every other IEP train or the extra power consumption from all those heavy bi-modes keeps overloading the power supply). If extra vehicles are needed, just use the IEP order intended for the ECML (save for arround 18 9-car electric sets to replace the IC125s, using locos to haul either IC225s or IEPs where wires don't exist) to lengthen the GWML sets to a sensible length (without the expensive PFI please).

I believe the point being made is that multiple working on this particular route would be difficult because the platforms are five coaches long, and the train would be formed of two five coach sets with no through gangway connection. Thus meaning the second set is unuseable save for some form of very convoluted stopping arrangements.

Indeed, that's one good point. I also don't like the idea of units in multiple with no through gangway connection being used with portion working (if all coaches stay in multiple for the full service and the platforms are all long enough so it doesn't matter which unit you are in it doesn't really matter much).

Sadly, it does seem depressingly likely that IEP will be a bit of a cockup. Five coach trains on intenisve intercity routes has been tried before, and didn't work.

Agreed, that's the way it is looking.

 

[jimm]

And another interminably long post, repeating all the same stuff you always post for the umpteenth time - ignoring yet again what was said about potential for variations in IEP formations in the GW tender documents, despite me repeating it immediately above.

I could, and clearly should, have added after Best Western's post, that DfT are not suggesting running five-car IEPs on their own on the GWML at busy times - though why not very early in the morning going against the peak flow - like 180s do heading out to Worcester now - or late at night. The clearly stated intention is to couple and uncouple pairs of sets at Oxford and Swindon (to give Gloucester and Cheltenham hourly services all day). And a longer train will be needed for Cotswold and Cheltenham peak trains - there's no getting away from that. It will probably fall to FGW, assuming their extension negotiations are successfully concluded, to sort that one out now, given that the IEPs will be rolling off the production line by the time a new long-term franchise is sorted out.

 

[starrymarkb]

Surely it should be possible for the trains, when working in multiple, to run with only one pantograph in the consist raised, with power supplied to the other set through the coupler? Indeed this often occurs to me whenever I hear of issues with pantographs in close succession.

I believe they are going to have 2 pans per unit, one on each Driving Trailer, In that case they just raise the very front and very rear and instantly you have enough space! This is how 395s and ICE-Ts work when in multiple. Sending large voltages/currents though an Autocoupler is not a good idea...

 

[cjp]

The problem on the Cotswold Line is that all the platforms at the intermediate stations can only take five coaches, or fewer, with the exception of the Worcester-bound platform at Kingham, which takes six - which is why GW franchise bidders clearly told DafT at thje pre-qualifying stage that longer sets are going to be needed (given that some of the peak HSTs run full or near-full for parts of their journeys west of Oxford now) and why the possibility of formations other than five-car bi-mode and nine-car electric was then mentioned by DafT in the GW invitation to tender.

Trying to run more trains in the peak isn't really realistic - you might squeeze one in somewhere - but the single-line between Charlbury and Oxford is pretty stretched now on weekday mornings, and even a big timetable recast post-electrification is unlikely to change that state of affairs, so a number of longer bi-modes look the only sensible option.

And the same issues of platform lengths apply on the route to Gloucester and Cheltenham via Kemble and Stroud, where peak HSTs are pretty busy too. At Stonehouse the platforms are all of 50m long!

With two joined five car sets would it not be possible to stop them so that 2 or 3 coaches of each set are in the platform and use selective opening (jointly by the guard and driver?) with closing and dispatch by the guard based in the second set).
Or is that sort of thing too obvious and not workable (and if not why not).

 

[The Ham]

With two joined five car sets would it not be possible to stop them so that 2 or 3 coaches of each set are in the platform and use selective opening (jointly by the guard and driver?) with closing and dispatch by the guard based in the second set).
Or is that sort of thing too obvious and not workable (and if not why not).

Yes it is possible, It is even possible to have bars in the tracks so that if the train stops somewhere other than where it ment to only the correct doors open. This is what is being done on the Waterloo-Reading line so that long trains can stop at short platforms.

By using this technology a 10 coach train (formed by doubling up two 5 coach sets), could stop at platforms which can only take 5 or 6 coaches and as long as the trains was approximatly in the right location would open up doors on the correct portion and side of the train.

 

[Monkey Magic]

I suspect the problem is stations like Hanbrough which only take 2 coaches at the moment. You would need to be able to stop with E and F in the platform, assuming door location. Plus Hanbrough in the morning always has a ton of people with bikes.

Jimm - thus far your posts are the only comments anywhere I've seen that have said that there can (and will be) alternative formations of Bi-mode.

My comment would be this - if there is a 'special set' of 'peak formation' bi-mode IEP for the cotswold line and other services, what happens to them between peaks. There are perhaps 6 morning and 8 evening services that need to be 8+. You'd have to be super careful with rostering to ensure that you have i) enough sets and ii) they are in the right place for the peaks. What you do with the 8+ bi modes between peaks? Run them to Great Malvern?

 

[Rhydgaled]

ignoring yet again what was said about potential for variations in IEP formations in the GW tender documents, despite me repeating it immediately above.

I didn't completly ignore it this time, qualifying my first statement with: "(admittedly from some time ago but we don't know if DfT have really seen sense or not)". However, as seen here, near the bottom my fears that DaFT might not be listening to FirstGW's comments that 5-car is wrong have been confirmed since yesterday Hitachi were still reporting that the order for GW is 5-car bi-modes and 9-car 'electrics'.

With two joined five car sets would it not be possible to stop them so that 2 or 3 coaches of each set are in the platform and use selective opening (jointly by the guard and driver?) with closing and dispatch by the guard based in the second set).
Or is that sort of thing too obvious and not workable (and if not why not).

Yes it is possible, It is even possible to have bars in the tracks so that if the train stops somewhere other than where it ment to only the correct doors open. This is what is being done on the Waterloo-Reading line so that long trains can stop at short platforms.

By using this technology a 10 coach train (formed by doubling up two 5 coach sets), could stop at platforms which can only take 5 or 6 coaches and as long as the trains was approximatly in the right location would open up doors on the correct portion and side of the train.

But if you're running a 10-car train through to Hereford anyway you might as well have longer sets to begin with, avoiding the need for all the complicated stuff and crumple-zones half way through the train, and giving you full buffet facilities.

 

[The Ham]

But if you're running a 10-car train through to Hereford anyway you might as well have longer sets to begin with, avoiding the need for all the complicated stuff and crumple-zones half way through the train, and giving you full buffet facilities.

With 2x5 coach trains the longer trains would only need to be longer when there was demand for them, the rest of the time they could be shorter. If (for example) you had a 7 coach train it could only ever be 7 coaches which could cause problems, including:

• what happens if the unit scheduled to run breaks down? Send out a 5 coach unit?
• what happens when passenger numbers grow and an 7 coach train is too short?
• What do you do about needing more capacity east of Oxford and/or Reading?
• What do you do when if the frequency along the line is increased and therefore the length of train can be 5 coaches?

 

[transmanche]

what happens when passenger numbers grow and an 7 coach train is too short?

You insert another carriage...

 

[The Ham]

You insert another carriage...

From where? Do you buy one carriage (OK maybe another 20, but either way it's a small order and will be expensive), shorten another set or run sets doubled up anyway?

 

[transmanche]

From where? Do you by a one of carriage (OK maybe another 20, but either way it's a small order and will be expensive), shorten another set or run sets doubled up anyway?

You don't need to buy one.

Remember, IEP is being delivered under this new-fangled 'all-in-one' contract, where (grossly simplified) Agility own and maintain the trains and just have to make available the units you request.

So where, you have previously contracted for 7-car units, you change that to 8-car or 9-car etc... up to 12-car units (which is the max length in the specs).

 

[mr_jrt]

I still have no idea how NR can't just throw together some temporary wooden platforms over a weekend and then slowly replace them with more permanent structures as time permits...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Sending large voltages/currents though an Autocoupler is not a good idea...

I'd agree with that, sure... But I was always under the impression that the 25kv Traction current of the OHLE is stepped-down considerably before being distributed throughout the trainset (i.e. to traction motors and to power the various auxilliary things), so even if the traction current is being transmitted through couplers- it wouldn't be at 25kv at this point. I understand that the 'wave effect' on the catenary created by the pantos is one of the reasons there have been issues with the running of 8/12 car 350s at 110mph. I appreciate that the couplers on the 350s won't have been designed to transfer power between units, but I'd have thought it would make sense to design this facility into the IEPs given that multiple pantos at high speed is known to be an issue.

 

[starrymarkb]

I'd agree with that, sure... But I was always under the impression that the 25kv Traction current of the OHLE is stepped-down considerably before being distributed throughout the trainset (i.e. to traction motors and to power the various auxilliary things), so even if the traction current is being transmitted through couplers- it wouldn't be at 25kv at this point. I understand that the 'wave effect' on the catenary created by the pantos is one of the reasons there have been issues with the running of 8/12 car 350s at 110mph. I appreciate that the couplers on the 350s won't have been designed to transfer power between units, but I'd have thought it would make sense to design this facility into the IEPs given that multiple pantos at high speed is known to be an issue.

Problem is if you step the voltage down you increase the current, so you need thicker conductors rather then thicker insulation. Also if the connection is a bit dodgy then you could have serious heat/arc issues - Most inter-vehicle buses are permanently bolted for this reason.

The problem with the 350s is more to do with how the units are arranged. Potentially 350 pans are 70m apart (depending on which way round the sets are), ideally you want them much further!

If Two Five Car IEP sets are in formation with the very front and very rear pans of the formation raised you have a gap of at least 208m!

 

[Rhydgaled]

With 2x5 coach trains the longer trains would only need to be longer when there was demand for them, the rest of the time they could be shorter.

The GWML is a very busy railway surely. How often would a 5-car unit be enough to cope? My guess is a lot less often than 5-car sets will be forced to run alone due to not enough of the things to run in multiple.

what happens if the unit scheduled to run breaks down? Send out a 5 coach unit?

Nope, they would not, should not, be any 5-car units. Total Train Service provision contract would actually help here too, no train no pay.
[quoute]what happens when passenger numbers grow and an 7 coach train is too short?[/quote]Trobble, or get more coaches. You'd have the same probably (and sooner, if not immediately) with 5-car sets.

What do you do about needing more capacity east of Oxford and/or Reading?

Build a new line. Seriously, if the line is full with long trains (and remember I'm arguing that the trains should be longer) there's not alot else you can do.

What do you do when if the frequency along the line is increased and therefore the length of train can be 5 coaches?

You buy new trains to provide the increased frequency, which had better still be long because the increased frequency should increase passenger numbers.

 

[cjp]

Build a new line. Seriously, if the line is full with long trains (and remember I'm arguing that the trains should be longer) there's not alot else you can do.
You buy new trains to provide the increased frequency, which had better still be long because the increased frequency should increase passenger numbers.

Have you seriosly considered the infrastructure requirements and the cost to society of making the new line you "seriously" suggest?

I believe you can improve line utilisation to an extent with signalling changes and can control demand by pricing. So you see there is a lot more that can be done before your idea of cutting a swathe through town and country.

 

[jimm]

With two joined five car sets would it not be possible to stop them so that 2 or 3 coaches of each set are in the platform and use selective opening (jointly by the guard and driver?) with closing and dispatch by the guard based in the second set).
Or is that sort of thing too obvious and not workable (and if not why not).

Well let's hope so - it would solve the issue in most cases but if this is the way they are thinking, then there are some platforms all over the parts of the GW area projected for IEP operations where extensions would clearly be needed to get at least a couple of coaches of both sets on, so entry and exit doesn't take forever. And even then certain people here will still go off on one again about there not being through corridors between sets, catering, revenue protection....

I suspect the problem is stations like Hanbrough which only take 2 coaches at the moment. You would need to be able to stop with E and F in the platform, assuming door location. Plus Hanbrough in the morning always has a ton of people with bikes.

Jimm - thus far your posts are the only comments anywhere I've seen that have said that there can (and will be) alternative formations of Bi-mode.

My comment would be this - if there is a 'special set' of 'peak formation' bi-mode IEP for the cotswold line and other services, what happens to them between peaks. There are perhaps 6 morning and 8 evening services that need to be 8+. You'd have to be super careful with rostering to ensure that you have i) enough sets and ii) they are in the right place for the peaks. What you do with the 8+ bi modes between peaks? Run them to Great Malvern?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never said there will be.

But there could be, even though you seem to imply I'm making it up. I'm not - the stuff about the potential for variations of formations is here in black and white in the GW invitation to tender on page 77 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/3596/invitation-to-tender.pdf

It's not there by accident, the pre-qualification clearly threw up concern from potential bidders about the proposed fleet, which is why DfT put it in there.

What happens to any longer sets between the peaks? You could run them up and down where loadings are heavier, such as between London and Oxford on services that don't extend to the Cotswold Line, or London to Bristol or Cardiff - just like some of the HSTs do now between the peaks. Diagrams are not captive to the Cotswold Line, if that's what you think, and the trains have to get back to a depot at some point, so can just as easily go during the day. Four HSTs currently spend the night parked at Worcester and Hereford, not at depots.

I didn't completly ignore it this time, qualifying my first statement with: "(admittedly from some time ago but we don't know if DfT have really seen sense or not)". However, as seen here, near the bottom my fears that DaFT might not be listening to FirstGW's comments that 5-car is wrong have been confirmed since yesterday Hitachi were still reporting that the order for GW is 5-car bi-modes and 9-car 'electrics'.

But if you're running a 10-car train through to Hereford anyway you might as well have longer sets to begin with, avoiding the need for all the complicated stuff and crumple-zones half way through the train, and giving you full buffet facilities.

It confirms nothing at all - I believe the speaker you mean was the boss of Hitachi Europe (as the site linked to is down) - and the order Agility Trains currently has from the DfT says that is what they are required to build, so he isn't going to say anything different. He can't, as there is no new franchisee to look at the issue and FGW, who will likely have to try to sort it out now, are still not in a position to do so as they and DfT are still in talks on a three-year agreement.

The GW invitation to tender made clear that things could change and that remains the case. Do not think for one moment that FGW are going to sit there and say 'we could lose the keys shortly, so we won't worry what these trains end up like' - FGW do take a long-term view and will act accordingly on IEP if they are in a position to do so. They aren't going to saddle themselves or any other future operator with a pup if they think that is what the proposed fleet will be.

And what was I saying above about what people would say about the catering provision? There is no actual need to run a 10-car train to Hereford, same as there's no need to run a full-length HST set there now, were they not fixed formations. If it has to be 2x5-car, then in the peaks you would probably run a pair east of Worcester and join or split the train there.

And the question about all GW bi-modes being five-car formations is still there, given current loadings on five-car 180s on some services west of Oxford, the limited extra capacity a five-car IEP would have beyond what a 180 offers, and the growth trends in passenger traffic - all factors very much in the minds of people at FGW.

 

[Monkey Magic]

I didn't put words into your mouth - I asked you a question about how you thought longer bi-mode units might be utilised. Nor did I imply that you were 'making it up' - simply to note that you are the only person I've ever seen suggest that the TOC will have the ability to configure IEP as they choose. I certainly wasn't doubting you. There is no need to be so defensive.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But there could be, even though you seem to imply I'm making it up. I'm not - the stuff about the potential for variations of formations is here in black and white in the GW invitation to tender on page 77 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/3596/invitation-to-tender.pdf
It's not there by accident, the pre-qualification clearly threw up concern from potential bidders about the proposed fleet, which is why DfT put it in there.

I would just say that this ITT has been binned along with the franchise competition.
I'm not saying what you indicate about train lengths is not going to happen, but I wouldn't rely on the ITT.
I would also observe that 5/10-car Voyagers work just fine splitting/joining at Chester for the run up the WCML.
No reason that would not work at Oxford or Worcester with IEP if required.
10-car sets at Hereford is overkill.

 

[jimm]

I would just say that this ITT has been binned along with the franchise competition.
I'm not saying what you indicate about train lengths is not going to happen, but I wouldn't rely on the ITT.
I would also observe that 5/10-car Voyagers work just fine splitting/joining at Chester for the run up the WCML.
No reason that would not work at Oxford or Worcester with IEP if required.
10-car sets at Hereford is overkill.

Of course the ITT is now void as a result of the franchise debacle but that does not mean to say that the question of what shape the IEP fleet finally takes has died with it, does it? Nor the multitude of other things in that document that a new franchisee was supposed to be dealing with in a matter of days from now - many of which cannot be deferred until there is a new open bidding process for Great Western and so will have to be addressed by DfT and FGW (or DOR) in the next three years.

I didn't put words into your mouth - I asked you a question about how you thought longer bi-mode units might be utilised. Nor did I imply that you were 'making it up' - simply to note that you are the only person I've ever seen suggest that the TOC will have the ability to configure IEP as they choose. I certainly wasn't doubting you. There is no need to be so defensive.

You did put words in my mouth - I have always very carefully qualified different formations as being a possibility and no more than that - never that it will happen, in this thread and others.

Maybe I did read too much into the 'only person' bit but to my mind it clearly implied some doubt about what I was saying, perhaps understandably when many people continue to post here on the basis that the GW IEP fleet that emerges in 2017-18 will be exactly what DfT has indicated it wants - even though the ITT clearly demonstrated that it was willing to listen to a detailed case from an operator to be allowed to have other formations - and that issue clearly came up in the pre-qualifying process before the ITT was finalised.