I think it would be a good idea if one fo the South Wales trains only stopped at either Reading or Swindon in addition to bristol Parkway, where passengers could change to a slower service from Bristol Temple Meads following behind if they wanted one of the ommitted stops.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
IEP Annoucement
- Thread starter Zoe
- Start date
- Status
I think it would be a good idea if one fo the South Wales trains only stopped at either Reading or Swindon in addition to bristol Parkway, where passengers could change to a slower service from Bristol Temple Meads following behind if they wanted one of the ommitted stops.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,666
It would be Paddington non-stop to Parkway - Temple Meads from what I've seen, a service that should be there now to be honest.
Is there any point even stopping at Parkway? Why not run non-stop to Temple Meads?
Not that I can think of but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be one. I doubt many people will get on or off at Parkway.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,666
Parkway has a larger catchment area than Temple Meads, it is close to the M32, M4 and M5, Abbey Wood, Bradley Stoke etc ....You suddenly market a quick service from there and people would use it.
Last time I went through both stations, lots of people got on at Temple Meads but only a few did at Parkway.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,666
Do FGW market Parkway though ?? if they did a headline service like Virgin do on the WCML and blag it by stripping out engineering allowances and not public booking it then it would become more attractive. People are sheep for marketing....
Just have to watch they don't make the mistake Virgin did in 2002. Their marketing of the Voyagers was too successful.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,666
But FGW have HSTs !! they are the saviours of train travel I thought ?? shedloads of capacity there !
They won't have HSTs on that route by the time the improved services is introduced though.
starrymarkb
Established Member
and the HD HSTs are already starting to get overcrowded...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
ooh something gleamed from JP on uk.railway - IEP Bimode coaches will add 15 tonnes per vehicle? Trackmunching anyone?
That is exactly why one of the engines in each coach may have to run when under the wires.
Daimler
Member
Crumbs! I'm a self-confessed bi-mode sceptic but I didn't expect it to add that much extra weight!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
No, no, no! The wires should be able to supply enough power for it - after all, a 5-coach bi-mode is hardly going to be drawing as much current as a Class 92 on a heavy freight, is it?
The whole idea of running the diesel engine under the wires remains absurd.
Also, I'm hoping you don't mean 'one of the engines in each coach'? Otherwise, how many engines is this thing going to have?
Last edited:
starrymarkb
Established Member
I think Axle loadings will be a big issue aswell, Class 395's average 45.8 tonnes per vehicle. add a bit for 26m and you are looking at 60t per vehicle
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've heard 3 engines in the middle 3 vehicles mentioned
SNCF have a two coach diesel unit with 3 engines per vehicle - 2 for traction and 1 for auxiliaries. They are a maintenance nightmare!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've heard 3 engines in the middle 3 vehicles mentioned
SNCF have a two coach diesel unit with 3 engines per vehicle - 2 for traction and 1 for auxiliaries. They are a maintenance nightmare!
Last edited:
If you read back through the thread you will see, three engines per coach. It seem to not be an issue with the OHL supply itself but with the transformer.
Jesus and we thought the 185s were lardbutts weighing in at around 56t per vehicle!
Daimler
Member
In which case the transformer's not up to the job! <sobs>
Whatever the reason, the ultimate conclusion remains that the design - if all the assumptions that have been made in this thread are correct - is fundamentally flawed.
starrymarkb
Established Member
Depends, you'd be looking at 1 heavy vehicle pulling a set of relatively light vehicles rather then 3 or 6 not quite as heavy but still in need of a diet and 2/4 lighter vehicles . It may even out, but would be interesting to find out...
Daimler
Member
I do wish I could find the Modern Railways article that examined Network Rail's track wear model, concluding that it penalised locomotives far more heavily relative to units than was actually accurate.
If you had a heavier transformer though it would be adding weight to the EMU version of the train.
Daimler
Member
In which case I honestly think that would be better. Anything's better than buying a load of new trains designed to run their diesel engine under the brand new overhead wires!
At most though it will only be one of the engines in each coach. It's not the same as running a Voyager under the wires.
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 9,665
with such extensive elecrification (ie cardiff not cut back to bristol) i cannot see the purpose of bimode. How many of the bimode trains will actually be needed. 1tph to swansea and a few a day on EC (harrogate daily hull daily aberdeen a few times inverness) So some of them will go years without running on diesel alone.
One advantage is that the ones that do hull and harrogate can run electric for rest of the day. And also for part of the route obviously. Just seems to make more sense to me to attach a 67 to front. Some trains gonna carry around disel fuel and engines without using them in weeks. my head just wont see sense in it unfortunately.
One advantage is that the ones that do hull and harrogate can run electric for rest of the day. And also for part of the route obviously. Just seems to make more sense to me to attach a 67 to front. Some trains gonna carry around disel fuel and engines without using them in weeks. my head just wont see sense in it unfortunately.
You are forgetting Worcester and Chelentham.
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 9,665
oh yeah ofc :/ ah well point still stands even if slightly more of balance ....
Daimler
Member
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
I presume this is 15t heavier than the EMU coachs which will feature a 30% weight saving on the average 45t coach (Hitachi bid spec)? That puts them at around 42t.
Class 33
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,362
Hmmm.... I originally thought these two extra Bristol-London services per hour running via Bristol Parkway would in fact not be stopping there, and running non-stop between Bristol and Reading. Maybe not then.
Perhaps an alternate idea would be have the calling patterns of these extra services as such....
1. Bristol Temple Meads>Bristol Parkway>London Paddington
2. Bristol Temple Meads>Reading>London Paddington
Then you'd have two extra fast express services from Temple Meads, and one extra fast service from Parkway. Which would be about right really to suit demand for the two Bristol stations?
I think also really with a just a tiny bit of timetable reshuffling of the Cardiff-Portsmouth's and Bristol-Weymouth services, there could be available paths to run either of the two additional express services via Bath and Chippenham. For instance at xx:20 and/or xx:50 past the hour departing Temple Meads, these services would then catch up with the "slower" Bristol-London services near the Didcot/Reading area. Or perhaps at say xx:12 and/or xx:42 past the hour from Temple Meads, and these services would then overtake the slower xx:00 and xx:30 services at Swindon? However, it has been stated that those two additional Bristol-London services ARE to run via Bristol Parkway and Badmington. Unless these plans change. Though I think that will be a bit of a challenge finding available paths along the Temple Meads-Parkway bottleneck. As there's the Bristol-Severn Beach trains, the Portsmouth-Cardiff's, Bristol-Great Malvern's, the Bristol Temple Meads-Parkway all stations stopping services, the half hourly Arriva Cross Country services, and the half hourly HST's from South Wales-London!
Anyway, it will be very intersting come 2016(hopefully) when the GWML is finally electrified and these brand new trains and services enter service. I very much miss those good ol' days of BR back in the 70's and 80's(and up untill 1996 before privatisation). But I can't wait for 2016 when this happens. Things are going to be very interesting and different compared to the last decade or so. So I say roll on 2016!
Last edited:
- Status