The regional bi-mode train would be needed to replace the 158/159s at the same time as the engines in the bi-mode IEPs are no longer necessary, if they are kept only on the routes they were originally intended for.
I read that and thought: "now there's a good idea". And I do like the idea, but then I engaged brain.
Firstly, assuming the regional bi-mode fleet needs to be arround 148 carriages to replace the SWT and Cardiff-Portsmouth 158s fleets there might not be enough diesel engines released (depending on how fast electrification teams work).
Secondly, the diesel lumps intended for IEP are rather big ones, 700hp a peice was it, or was it 700kw? Maybe a bit over powered for a regional unit, but concerns have been raised on the WNXX fourm that engines that big might only just fit under the floor, so they might be to big to install in another type of train.
Thirdly, the ideal date for introduction of the new regional bi-mode trains would probably be arround 2019 (is that a realistic lead time to build a train fleet?) as it would then be able to help with TSI-PRM compliance. That would be before any further GWML electrification (though given that I don't think ICEC needs bi-mode at all there could be those engines available I suppose).
I see bi-mode as a sensible compromise - what would the alternatives be?
A lot of diesel running under the wires?
Forcing people on non-electrified branches to change trains?
Diverting resources (crews/plant as well as money) from electrifying routes that bring a large benefit to many people, in order to electrify routes that happen to have a few London services in response to political pressure from people who (rightly) object to losing them.
And it is good to see that the IEP design is modular so that the diesel engine modules can be removed at a later date, if ongoing electrification reduces the need for bi-modes.
I agree. Virtually everything on the railways is a compromise (e.g. no train has the same number of passengers and the same line speed throughout its journey, so someone needs to make a trade off between top speed/ capacity). Bi-mode seems to be better than the alternatives, so I'm in favour.
I agree that bi-mode can be a good compromise. However, I think it needs to be considered much more carefully, and as part of a longer-term plan, than it has been. East Coast just doesn't have the critical mass of diesel-worked services to make a diesel train fleet worthwhile in my opinon, especially if, as seems likely, Hull and Harrogate are electrified by 2025. If you merged the fleet with MML services though, as I keep going on about, you might make it work. There's also the question of what to prioritise for electrification, the Cotswolds line falls low on the list because some of the Intercity frequency goes to Worcester but some of that continues to Hereford, so you can't convert the full hourly service without doing a bit that's not hourly, and it's a fair long way. Hence, for that route, bi-mode seems to make sense. Swindon-Cheltenham and Bristol-Weston-Super-Mare however give an hourly London service for comparitively short extensions of electrification, which is why I think they should be 2020-2024 schemes with IEP introduction defered so they can get electric rather than bi-mode units.
building new locomotives for the sake of doing two "drags" a day
You wouldn't need to build any new locomotives for two drags a day though. The class 68s already on order would more than cover the requirement for EC's services (either directly or by cascading 67s).
When I said giving the DFT the ability to extend the electrification process, I meant extend the time frames. Bi-mode trains gives them an excuse to electrify less quickly.
Or to move the routes operated using bi-modes further down the list then they would otherwise be based on frequency, amount of diesel burned etc. That'd still be delaying for some routes, but might bring less-worthy routes to the front of the queue.
Well you seem quite happy to drag out life-exprired electrics forever, so what's the problem with similar diesels? Or are you now advocating buying new diesels to run for a few years before electrics arrive?
Perfectly happy to see a few IC125s made to stagger on a year or two longer if it means they can be replaced with electric rather than bi-mode IEPs.
You keep asserting that bi-modes damage the case for wires. Others of us think they help it, as it allows the spread of electric operation in a staged way. So when you have wired the whole route, move the bi-modes to another route that can benefit from a mix of electric and diesel operation.
That's fine if the policy maker intends to do that and can think of a (series of) logical place(s) to move the bi-modes to. I don't trust the government to do either at present, especially as I can't think of many logical things to do with the bi-modes. The obvious ones are XC and Midland Main Line, but MML will mostly need electrics and might be wired and in need of new stock before 2020 (though EC doesn't need that many bi-modes and as I've said before, a shared fleet could work wonders there). That leaves XC, which has relatively new Voyagers and is also the obvious place to send the 222s to. Next I fall back to Glasgow/Edingburgh - Aberdeen/Inverness, and actually, a 5-car bi-mode might give enough capacity up there? My one concern with that is the fuel consumption of an IEP compared to the current stock, but then again wasn't there a romour of using Voyagers? Not much in it if that's the alternative.
But you also what? Despite being asked, by me and others, to explain what you do about different levels of demand on different sections of a route, you still haven't given us a straight answer, just bluster about portion working not being a good idea. So what is a good idea to handle this situation?
On a regional route with no need for buffets, first class or running faster than 110mph, probably portion working (with units with end corridor connections). On PAD-Cotswolds, I don't think there is a good answer that will please everyone. The operationally correct answer is to make the passengers change to a shorter train, except when a long train right through can be justified, but I accept that is probably not acceptable to passengers. And so I have to resort to suggesting a mix of 9-car on the busier services and 7/8-car on quieter runs. Not a good answer I know, but I don't think there is one.
As for DfT agreement to something more than a trolley, which Transport Secretary is going to want to go down in history as being the person who killed the Pullman restaurant car in favour of a trolley?
But they won't necessarily have killed Pullman service, just restricted it to first class passengers.
And off-peak Cheltenham services would most certainly not be formed of HSTs right now if there were more 180s available to FGW.
What would they do in the peaks, park the 180 somewhere and bring out an IC125 that has been parked in the sidings during the off-peak?
Again, what is your cunning plan for the GW express services that do not need 450, 500, 550, 600 or more seats on all or part of their journeys?
And in the peaks, a 450-seat, seven-coach train - fewer seats than any current FGW HST - is going to be rather less use than 2x5-car formations with 650 seats.
Why, if FirstGW would be sending 180s out to Cheltenham if they had more of them, would they have just gone to the expense of converting buffet cars to lengthen their 2+7 IC125s to 2+8s? If a mix of train lengths was really desired, they could have shortened some 2+7s to 2+6s and lengthened others to 2+8s. But they didn't, they went of an all-2+8 fleet. And, by my reckoning, a 2+8 low-density IC125 has 474 seats, whereas taking the composite coach out of an 8-car IEP would give you 471 seats. I didn't pick out 7-car IEP out of the air as a minimum train length, I chose it because it provides almost equal capacity to the current trains. You'd need longer IEPs in the mix as well, but if my seating capacity spreadsheet is correct 7-car IEP would be comparable to current trains and therefore might be useful if you can keep them away from peak services. If you can't keep any diagrams away from the peaks, then everything really will need to be 9-car.
I suspect they might say something remarkable like 'when we arrive at Oxford, get out and walk up the platform to get on one of the five coaches at the front'.
So, do they hold the other portion and make it late while everyone who got in the wrong coach does this? With through corridor connections, you can get everyone in the correct portion before the train stops moving so you don't need to worry about that.
It must be about time to revive your previous notions of 91s and Mk4s on Great Western and decrepit Class 47s dragging emus west of Oxford.
Nope, not going to start suggesting loco-drags of EMUs on the Cotswolds again, that's the one route where Intercity bi-mode seems to make sense (unless you don't get enough passengers west of Oxford to justify running through London services). As for 91s on Great Western, it's the only possible home I see for them other than the ECML, but I've decided the case for keeping them is probably stronger on the ECML so that's where I'm focusing.
