IEP Annoucement

[Zoe]

I know but I meant east of Reading.

If they intend to split between Cardiff and Temple Meads at Parkway then it wouldn't be an issue. Not quite sure how many extra paths you'd get east of Reading considering there will be extra trains on the fast lines due to Crossrail.

 

[TheWalrus]

If they intend to spliut between Cardiff and Temple Meads at Parkway then it wouldn't be an issue. Not quite sure how many extra paths you'd get east of Reading considering there will be extra trains on the fast lines due to Crossrail.

Surely they will use slow lines?!

 

[Zoe]

Surely they will use slow lines?!

Crossrail will but other FGW service will have to move to the fast lines. Crossrail won't have exclusive use of the relief lines though, under current plans there will be a 2 tph Paddington to Reading FGW service and a 2 tph FGW shuttle between Slough and Reading. Both of these are planned to use the relief lines.

 

[tbtc]

One of the points about the IEP was always that it would be easily converted to EMU only operation as and when elitrification occurs. Once Cardiff is hooked up you can always carry on to Swansea. All those Bi modes just get converted to single source, it buying something more exspensive to fufill more needs. Sounds like joined up thinking to me. As for struggling to haul around the extra engines that seems a little silly to me if you actually do the math. How much does an engine weigh compared to some carriages?

Interesting idea.

Once "stage two" is electrified (say, for arguments sake Cardiff to Swansea and Bristol to Exeter) then there's the debate about whether the IEP units on this section should be converted to "pure" EMUs or whether new EMUs would be ordered with the IEP units going on to other "extensions" (e.g. London - Sunderland/ Hull/ Holyhead) where they could replace DMUs...

 

[Zoe]

Once "stage two" is electrified (say, for arguments sake Cardiff to Swansea and Bristol to Exeter)

I will say this again: Ending electrification at Exeter is pointless, almost nothing terminates there and you'd be forced to use bi-mode for the short run to Plymouth. Electrification should be from Bristol to Plymouth.

 

[WatcherZero]

The logistics that Hitcachi wouldn't build a locomotive?

No that it would be another supply and maintenence chain, would be very vulnerable to disruption and the time penalty of shunting it in and attaching it would have eliminated the time and financial savings of improved speed getting there from London, ruining its BCR. That was ontop of the problem that if the 43's were to continue they would need a very expensive overhaul.

 

[Zoe]

No that it would be another supply and maintenence chain, would be very vulnerable to disruption and the time penalty of shunting it in and attaching it would have eliminated the time and financial savings of improved speed ruining its BCR.

That combined with the fact that it seems Hitachi were not offering to build a locomotive is quite reasonable grounds for a decision to go with bi-mode.

 

[tbtc]

I will say this again: Ending electrification at Exeter is pointless, almost nothing terminates there and you'd be forced to use bi-mode for the short run to Plymouth. Electrification should be from Bristol to Plymouth.

But since it takes a while to electrify lines, there will be a period when (after Bristol is up and running) Exeter becomes the natural next "end". Can't do it all at once

 

[RobShipway]

I will say this again: Ending electrification at Exeter is pointless, almost nothing terminates there and you'd be forced to use bi-mode for the short run to Plymouth. Electrification should be from Bristol to Plymouth.

Well, I think the long term goal should be to end electrification at Penzance, although as some would say what is the point as I don't believe there is enough customers to warrant more services where using electrification would make a difference. I think the same argument applies to the Cardiff to Swansea section, although with that I think you have more chance if you argued the point that electrification should go to Fishguard so that there could be direct services from when the boats arrive to take passengers into London Paddington. But as the statement from Philip Hammond stated that is up to the Welsh Assembly.

 

[Zoe]

But since it takes a while to electrify lines, there will be a period when (after Bristol is up and running) Exeter becomes the natural next "end". Can't do it all at once

Well I thought they were wiring all the way from Paddington to Bristol and Cardiff in one go so I don't see any reason why you can't push through to Plymouth. It would save needing an extensive fleet of bi-mode trains. You would just need bi-mode for a handful of services through to Penzance and the Plymouth services could be EMU operated.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, I think the long term goal should be to end electrification at Penzance

I doubt the wires will ever go beyond Plymouth, there just isn't the business case for it.

 

[WatcherZero]

It takes a year longer from Bristol to Cardiff if I remember what he said.

NR is really going to have to build up its electrification factory trains and teams with this electrification, Lancashire triangle and possibly more beyond that.

 

[tbtc]

Well, I think the long term goal should be to end electrification at Penzance, although as some would say what is the point as I don't believe there is enough customers to warrant more services where using electrification would make a difference. I think the same argument applies to the Cardiff to Swansea section, although with that I think you have more chance if you argued the point that electrification should go to Fishguard so that there could be direct services from when the boats arrive to take passengers into London Paddington. But as the statement from Philip Hammond stated that is up to the Welsh Assembly.

London to Plymouth makes sense, longer term. But beyond that it gets harder to justify when there are busier lines without electrification (much of the MML/ Cross Country/ Transpennine routes for a start, decent sized cities too).

Sorry, but Penzance seems a bit of a luxury at the moment

 

[WatcherZero]

Especielly when McNulty review has sparked scare stories of an end to rails in Cornwall and Devon.

 

[tbtc]

It takes a year longer from Bristol to Cardiff if I remember what he said

I knew IEP might be slower, but not *that* slow...

NR is really going to have to build up its electrification factory trains and teams with this electrification, Lancashire triangle and possibly more beyond that.

One thing encouraging me right now is that the momentum behind wiring lines means that there could well be an easier business case for further electrification - it could be a virtuous circle

 

[transmanche]

The main point of electrifying to Newbury is to allow suburban services from Paddington to go over to EMU operation. I'm not sure you'd be able to electrify Reading to Basingstoke as third rail. Only extensions of existing systems are allowed and I'm not sure if Basingstoke to Reading could count as that.

Well there's third rail already at both Reading and Basingstoke, so it could probably be classed as 'infill'.

However, with so many electric units now dual-mode AC/DC (or able to converted to dual-mode), it would probably makes more sense for any new electrification to use overhead rather than third rail.

 

[Zoe]

Remember also that the IEP deal includes an option for the Plymouth/Penzance route and for the WCML. There is a case to press ahead with this and electrificaiton from Bristol to Plymouth and Crewe to Chester. Voyagers released from Chester could go to the MML to replace HSTs. Electrification of the MML would then allow the conversion of Voyagers and 222s to EMUs.

 

[Daimler]

No that it would be another supply and maintenence chain, would be very vulnerable to disruption and the time penalty of shunting it in and attaching it would have eliminated the time and financial savings of improved speed getting there from London, ruining its BCR. That was ontop of the problem that if the 43's were to continue they would need a very expensive overhaul.

That's just not true - it really isn't. There's no reason why it would take any time at all coupling a diesel engine to an EMU - see the many posts to this effect earlier in the thread. With autocouplers and efficient operation, there's no reason why a locomotive couldn't be coupled to the front/rear in the standard dwell time of a major station.

I understand you think the bi-mode is a good idea - that's up to you, but that doesn't alter the fact that what you've posted just isn't the case!

 

[Zoe]

That's just not true - it really isn't. There's no reason why it would take any time at all coupling a diesel engine to an EMU - see the many posts to this effect earlier in the thread. With autocouplers and efficient operation, there's no reason why a locomotive couldn't be coupled to the front/rear in the standard dwell time of a major station.

That's all very well but how do you propose getting a company to build a locomotive that doesn't seem to want to build one?

 

[Daimler]

That's all very well but how do you propose getting a company to build a locomotive that doesn't seem to want to build one?

I don't - it's all academic, as we're stuck with what we're getting. But it frustrates me to see people making arguments that are frankly wrong - that's what I was taking issue with, nothing more.

 

[WatcherZero]

That's just not true - it really isn't. There's no reason why it would take any time at all coupling a diesel engine to an EMU - see the many posts to this effect earlier in the thread. With autocouplers and efficient operation, there's no reason why a locomotive couldn't be coupled to the front/rear in the standard dwell time of a major station.

I understand you think the bi-mode is a good idea - that's up to you, but that doesn't alter the fact that what you've posted just isn't the case!

Thats not my opinion thats Dft and Hammond opinion.

 

[Daimler]

Thats not my opinion thats Dft and Hammond opinion.

To suggest that the time savings gained by operating an electric train would be negated by coupling up a diesel locomotive at the 'end' of wires is in no way true - time savings to Cardiff are supposed to be 20 minutes. Assuming it saves no extra time between Cardiff and Swansea, then it would have to take 20 minutes for the loco to couple to the train for those time savings to be negated.

It's not an 'opinion' per se anyway. Using efficient autocouplers and efficient working practices (such as having the loco in the platform ready to couple up as the train comes in), it would take no time at all - you only have to watch two 350s coupling up at Euston (taking just one example) to see that. I see no reason why it would take any longer than a normal stop at a major station for an intercity train.

It's all entirely academic, of course, as I said above - we're stuck with it now (unless Bombardier/Alstom/Siemens kick up a big legal stink, of course - and even then we'll probably end up with some form of bi-mode from them...).

 

[Zoe]

they've come up with various other arguments.

So far I've only heard two:

1. Hitachi don't want to build a locomotive.

2. Logistical reasons as state by WatcherZero above.

What other reasons are there?

 

[Daimler]

So far I've only heard two:

1. Hitachi don't want to build a locomotive.

2. Logistical reasons as state by WatcherZero above.

What other reasons are there?

I was under the impression that a principal advantage of the bi-mode (in the eyes of the DfT, I hasten to add - I think the whole plan is bonkers!) was that it would be able to move under its own power if something went wrong with the wires in an electrified section/some aspect of the train failed en route.

I'm sure you've mentioned that one!

 

[Zoe]

I was under the impression that a principal advantage of the bi-mode (in the eyes of the DfT, I hasten to add - I think the whole plan is bonkers!) was that it would be able to move under its own power if something went wrong with the wires in an electrified section/some aspect of the train failed en route.

Yes, that is indeed an advantage. So now there are three reasons against locomotive haulage. How many reasons can you think of for locomotive haulage of EMUs off the wires. The obvious one I can think of is the lack of having to cart diesel engines around under the wires but extra power required for doing so seems to be quite debatable.

 

[flymo]

I think the whole plan is bonkers!

You're not the only one.

Reading this thread and seeing what is being proposed, this whole IEP scheme reminds me of the movie "The Pentagon Wars" which parodies the development of the Bradley M2 fighting vehicle.

To quote Wiki on the subject:

Originally developed as an armored personnel carrier by Colonel Robert L. Smith, the Bradley, after being subjected to the changing (and often conflicting) demands of a panel of armchair generals, is transformed into a hybrid of a troop carrier, a scout vehicle, and an anti-tank weapon platform. To make room for the weaponry, its complement of troops is reduced from eleven to six men; and despite its firepower, it has to be made of lightweight aluminium to serve as a scout vehicle. In the incredulous summation of Burton and his assistant, Sgt. Fanning, the finished Bradley is "a troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance, and a quasi-tank that has less armour than a snowblower, but carries enough ammo to take out half of D.C."
By the time General Partridge is put in charge of the project, the Bradley has been in development for seventeen years, at a cost of $14 billion.

The IEP hybrid is trying to be all things to everybody and may end up being nothing to nobody. I hope not.

 

[RobShipway]

One point people have missed is that I think you still may need a diesel locomotive to act a a rescue machine, in cases where the diesel power of the IEP does not work for some reason. That does not mean that Hitachi has to build a locomotive though as there is plenty of locomotives in the diesel locomotive fleets that should be able to act as rescue power, but as bee said before be able to couple up to the IEP trains with no issues.

 

[starrymarkb]

One point people have missed is that I think you still may need a diesel locomotive to act a a rescue machine, in cases where the diesel power of the IEP does not work for some reason. That does not mean that Hitachi has to build a locomotive though as there is plenty of locomotives in the diesel locomotive fleets that should be able to act as rescue power, but as bee said before be able to couple up to the IEP trains with no issues.

Surely for rescue locomotives you can use an adapter with existing locomotives, much as sprinters and other units carry. As a method of last resort you just need a mechanical coupling for low speed drags to clear the line as in most cases the rescue loco is usually something commendeered nearby.

 

[WatcherZero]

With so much redudancy its hard to imagine it failing completley and not able to limp home but if it needed rescuing would be no different to any other vehicle, either coupling to another unit or a rescue locomotive.

 

[Zoe]

The timing here is interesting, if the IEPs are introduced before April 2016 then it will prevent First threatening to take their HSTs eleswhere should they lose the franchise.

 

[RobShipway]

Come 2016 do first still have the FTPE Franchise? Just wondering if FIRST did not win the GWML franchise where they would take them?