IEP Construction Progress

[jimm]

The current deal has Agility Trains building and maintaining the stock for the TOCs rather than leaving it for the TOsC to maintain. The contract for this did contain an option to extend this to the Plymouth/Penzance route so if it was wanted to guarantee beyond all doubt that there would be a uniform fleet of trains then they option should have been taken up.

But even within the Government someone has recognised what a pig's ear they have made of this, so it's not surprising they have quietly dropped the options. The terms of the EC deal are different to the GW order.

There is still uncertainty about what wiring will be undertaken post-2019, so until it becomes clearer what's going to happen there, it would have been premature to take up the option, especially if it was on the same sort of terms as the original order. The IEP production line will be running into 2019 to build the EC fleet anyway, so there is plenty of time to take decisions that would keep it running after that point to build a West Country fleet as well.

 

[The Ham]

Not on East Coast. That franchise I think only has 10 diagrams that extend beyond the wires at present. Unless Grand Central go bust/pull-the-plug like Wrexham and Shropshire did and the East Coast franchise takes over the services.

THe important wording in your quote is "at present" there maybe more once they are able to run more.

Can you fit a microwave in the trolley stowage area (the size of a standard toilet I think) given the trolley needs to fit in there too? And why can't they do something like swapping the Kitchen with the first class section of the composite coach, so that the kitchen/buffet is between first and standard like on the IC125 and IC225 fleets.

Why not, with the trolley up to 4 foot with the microwave above (4 to 5 foot) and still have space above that for more storage.

By having the buffet between first and stanard, not only do you need to reduce the number of seats in the train, you also only 2 coaches of standard seats are within a 2 coach walk of the buffet compared with 4 under the draft layouts. In being located as you sugegst more people would have to walk further to get and further with their hot food than under the suggested draft layouts.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I note you have completely ignored my points about gradually spreading wires and the WCML electrification.

I didn't comment on that because I don't know the details, but I presume the diesel locos/units replaced had seen a fair amount of use when replaced or had somewhere they could usefully be cascaded to. There would also have been a benifit of using new electric locos/units instead of the previous diesels on the newly wired sections. Not the same thing as wiring a line which has brand new IEP bi-modes operating on it.

East Coast runs all of one train a day each way between Hull and London. It is a nice boost to capacity but in a context where Hull Trains is running all day, not a big deal.

It may only be one train a day, but it is also one eighth of the service East Coast runs beyond the wires (4 Aberdeen, 1 Inverness, 1 Lincoln, 1 Hull and 1 Harrogate = 8 trains per day).

I have said umpteen times before that there is no catering on HSTs working Oxford-London only services

Which is probably why I assumed that's what the micro-buffets were designed for. If you aren't providing catering, you don't want to waste space with a buffet car.

Really. Look at how the 180s are used now - with the possible exception of the 15.51 from Paddington to Worcester, which has lost its HST to the overhauls programme. The 180s have been carefully diagrammed to run against peak flows.

There are only five 180s with FirstGW though aren't there? As you say, the loss of an IC125 for overhaul has forced them to put a 180 on a buisier diagram, which suggests there were no more quiet diagrams they could put a 180 on.

The 91s will have clocked up 30 years by the time EC IEPs arrive - life-expired by typical rail standards

30 years is life-expired by diesel rail standards, as seen with IC125s putting new engines in them allowed them to break the 30 year barrier. Electric traction lasts longer, the 91s should do 40 years before life-expiry.

Where is your evidence that "they" have decided any such thing? Using words like "apparently" is not good enough. If it is "apparent" from another post on the internet, I'm afraid you'll have to do better, such as, say, a DfT document.

The evidence that DfT have decided the catering option to take forward for standard class is a trolley is the draft seating layouts produced by DfT. Yes, they are draft layouts, I know. Which is why it is 'apparently' rather than definately.

And whether it's seven, eight or nine coaches, that level of capacity is overkill west of Oxford off-peak

But 7 coaches isn't going to be overkill east of Oxford very often is it? As I see it, you either need to accept a micro-fleet of arround 5x 5/6-car units to replace 180s on the very few diagrams that would cope or accept you're going to have lightly loaded trains at the extremities or accept that passengers are going to have to change off the IEP onto a DMU at off-peak times to save sending the long trains onto the quieter sections (which, in my opinion, is effectively what portion working with IEPs would be doing anyway, since most passengers apparently board the London end of a train* and it would probably be the front portion going forward).

* Which also means alot sqeesing into 5-car units even when a second unit is attached. The same thing seemed true on Manchester Metrolink, on the rare occasions a double tram appears you are often much more likely to get a seat in the rear unit.

Eversholt, the ROSCO which owns the 225 fleet, planned to replace the 91s if the IEPs didn't replace the whole sets. The 91s aren't being kept on ICEC and that is final.

No, Eversholt proposed two options: a cheaper one (overhauling the 91s and fitting ERTMS, which seemed to be aimed at use on the ECML) and a more expensive one (replacing 91s with TraXX).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They would have to be very sure it was in fact "perfectly reasonable" otherwise they could find themselves in court. And if another potential bidder was feeling really cheeky they might even request full drawings and specs of the 800 and 801 as this information would be necessary for them to offer a "fully compatible" product.

FGW might get away with specifying 80x compatibility, but EMT couldn't.
The FGW 125mph EMU order looks like being a small one if it is only Oxford fasts (and they need them in 2016, well before 80x production will be available).
Maybe it will be 319s at first, upgrading later.

 

[Stats]

Not on East Coast. That franchise I think only has 10 diagrams that extend beyond the wires at present. Unless Grand Central go bust/pull-the-plug like Wrexham and Shropshire did and the East Coast franchise takes over the services.

The DfT have already said they are evaluating the business case for serving a number of locations not currently served by the ECML. Depending on the outcome of this work the ITT may include, as a requirement or option, that the ICEC operator serves new locations in the Midlands, Yorkshire, north-east and/or East of England.

 

[jimm]

And again....

I didn't comment on that because I don't know the details, but I presume the diesel locos/units replaced had seen a fair amount of use when replaced or had somewhere they could usefully be cascaded to. There would also have been a benifit of using new electric locos/units instead of the previous diesels on the newly wired sections. Not the same thing as wiring a line which has brand new IEP bi-modes operating on it.

What happened was that the range of operation of the electric locos gradually expanded as the wires spread. Same as you will be able to do in the future with IEP. If you don't want to see that, that's your problem.

It may only be one train a day, but it is also one eighth of the service East Coast runs beyond the wires (4 Aberdeen, 1 Inverness, 1 Lincoln, 1 Hull and 1 Harrogate = 8 trains per day).

It may soon become zero trains a day, if bidders for the new franchise say they can't see the point of running to Hull, and leave it to Hull Trains.

Which is probably why I assumed that's what the micro-buffets were designed for. If you aren't providing catering, you don't want to waste space with a buffet car.

But those HSTs do have catering on all their other jobs, which is what the mini-buffets were provided for.

There are only five 180s with FirstGW though aren't there? As you say, the loss of an IC125 for overhaul has forced them to put a 180 on a buisier diagram, which suggests there were no more quiet diagrams they could put a 180 on.

No, what it suggests is that they don't have enough HSTs to cover all the jobs they should be on, as a result of losing one set at a time to the overhaul programme. Before the change, the 180 used on the 15.51 was working on another 'quiet' diagram. I am at a loss to understand what it is about the lighter passenger loadings west of Oxford outside the peaks that you do not understand and why proposing running a train with 600 seats at such times is just plain bonkers. Even if you dished out free advance tickets, you still wouldn't fill it.

30 years is life-expired by diesel rail standards, as seen with IC125s putting new engines in them allowed them to break the 30 year barrier. Electric traction lasts longer, the 91s should do 40 years before life-expiry.

If someone had wanted to keep paying for them, Valentas could have kept on going for 10 more years, but the MTUs are more fuel-efficient and cheaper to maintain. All the BR WCML electric locos built in the early 1960s were sent to the scrapyard by their 30th birthdays. Same for the 1,500v dc Class 76s. Plenty of 86s and 87s didn't get much further than 30 years. Your opinion is not borne out by facts.

The evidence that DfT have decided the catering option to take forward for standard class is a trolley is the draft seating layouts produced by DfT. Yes, they are draft layouts, I know. Which is why it is 'apparently' rather than definately.

It is nothing of the sort. The draft layouts are dated August 2012, the GW invitation to tender was issued just the previous month, stating, as you know:

under Schedule 8 of the MARA the Secretary of State can vary the MARA (and TARA) in certain circumstances and to the extent that a Bidder wishes to develop proposals that may involve:
alteration of the Rules of the Fleet and/or Rules of the Depot; changes to the maintenance or any facility where the maintenance provider carries out stabling of the IEP Fleet or minor or routine maintenance of the IEP Fleet; re-marshalling of the sets comprised in the IEP Fleet as long as this is still compliant with the Train Technical Description and the Train Technical Specification (as both terms are defined under the MARA); minor changes to the performance capabilities of a set or any vehicle comprised in a set; and changes to the passenger environment of a set (including in respect of the catering areas).

So show me where it is stated that what is shown on those draft seating layouts trumps what was said in an official document, issued to all the firms bidding for the GW franchise, a matter of days earlier.

Any TOC told that actually it had to take trains with a layout determined by DfT, after they had been told categorically by DfT that it could ask for changes, would just go off and get some very expensive lawyers on the case straight away and show the ITT to a judge. Case closed. Nothing 'apparent' about it at all.

But 7 coaches isn't going to be overkill east of Oxford very often is it? As I see it, you either need to accept a micro-fleet of arround 5x 5/6-car units to replace 180s on the very few diagrams that would cope or accept you're going to have lightly loaded trains at the extremities or accept that passengers are going to have to change off the IEP onto a DMU at off-peak times to save sending the long trains onto the quieter sections (which, in my opinion, is effectively what portion working with IEPs would be doing anyway, since most passengers apparently board the London end of a train* and it would probably be the front portion going forward).

Even east of Oxford, a seven-car train seating perhaps 450 people will have empty seats, and quite a lot of them at some times, which is why the ability to attach/detach coaches there is useful, a practice that has been going on with Turbos at Oxford for 20 years. Anyway, I though you wanted an all nine-car fleet.

No, you are not going to make passengers change at Oxford, because the through service is what has sent traffic on the Cotswold Line on a pretty constant upward curve for 20 years since the Turbos reinstated day-round through working. and you are most especially not going to do it with Chiltern Railways arriving on your doorstep, with a nice big car park not that far from communities at the southern end of the Cotswold Line.

Swindon is another potential point for dividing and joining trains, for portion working to/from Cheltenham. A lot of people currently plan their journeys around the through HSTs to avoid using the Cheltenham-Swindon dmus. And again this is a route where you are not going to get anything like 600 off-peak passengers, so a shorter train west of Swindon makes sense.

Guess which portion will be at the front of a train leaving Oxford to London - the one starting there. And in the other direction, what is required is to radically improve provision of the information systems at the stations and on the trains, to get as many people as possible in the right portion in the first place. If there is good information - and, amazingly, people are also capable of learning things like 'travel in the front portion for such and such a station' - it simply will not be as hard as you make out. And what should it say in the IEP techncal specification but this:

• the PIS shall identify to passengers which IEP Vehicle they are in, and the PIS and PA System shall explain in the case of a service that divides en route which portion of the IEP Train each IEP Vehicle forms a part. The coach identification shall remain the same throughout the journey even after a division and the possible reversal of an IEP Train or a portion of an IEP Train

FGW might get away with specifying 80x compatibility, but EMT couldn't.
The FGW 125mph EMU order looks like being a small one if it is only Oxford fasts (and they need them in 2016, well before 80x production will be available).
Maybe it will be 319s at first, upgrading later.

You won't need 125mph emus for Oxford fasts in 2016. The first services to go electric will be the stoppers that December, if all goes to plan. HSTs will still be running on the Cotswold Line services, and presumably Oxford-London jobs as well, into mid-2017. IEPs built for South Wales may well be available for other jobs in 2017-18 before the wires get out to Swansea. Crossrail's start-up in 2019 is really the time you will need high-speed emus, with most GW services then running on the fasts.

And they may not just be on Oxford services. I can see a case for some to run as far as Swindon to help ease pressure there on services from Bristol and South Wales - the town's population is forecast to rise from just over 200,000 to 240,000 or so by 2026.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

The DfT have already said they are evaluating the business case for serving a number of locations not currently served by the ECML. Depending on the outcome of this work the ITT may include, as a requirement or option, that the ICEC operator serves new locations in the Midlands, Yorkshire, north-east and/or East of England.

Exactly weren't National Express planning more regular London to Lincoln service than the 1 train per day that currently runs? Then I have seen suggestions for the East Coast franchise to start running services to places like Scarborough and Middlesbrough which will not be possible without a number of Bi-Mode IEP.

 

[JamesRowden]

The FGW 125mph EMU order looks like being a small one if it is only Oxford fasts (and they need them in 2016, well before 80x production will be available).
Maybe it will be 319s at first, upgrading later.

And they may not just be on Oxford services. I can see a case for some to run as far as Swindon to help ease pressure there on services from Bristol and South Wales - the town's population is forecast to rise from just over 200,000 to 240,000 or so by 2026.

Following the implementation of IEP, the London and South East RUS 'expects' there to be a 15tph peak service on the fast tracks between Reading and Paddington formed of 9 IEP trains, 1 HST (West of England) and 5 8-car Thames Valley outer suburban EMUs.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

But even within the Government someone has recognised what a pig's ear they have made of this, so it's not surprising they have quietly dropped the options. The terms of the EC deal are different to the GW order.

There is still uncertainty about what wiring will be undertaken post-2019, so until it becomes clearer what's going to happen there, it would have been premature to take up the option, especially if it was on the same sort of terms as the original order. The IEP production line will be running into 2019 to build the EC fleet anyway, so there is plenty of time to take decisions that would keep it running after that point to build a West Country fleet as well.

Given the very high BCR for XC electrification then wiring from Bristol to Birmingham is looking highly likely for CP6. A useful add-on to that scheme would be Swindon to Stonehouse and the lines through Worcester for divisionary purposes which would free up some Bi-mode IEP for use in the south West which could be replaced by electric IEP. If the Worcester end is electrified then I guess it improves the case for wiring the Cotswold line freeing up even more Bi-Mode IEP.

 

[OxtedL]

It may only be one train a day, but it is also one eighth of the service East Coast runs beyond the wires (4 Aberdeen, 1 Inverness, 1 Lincoln, 1 Hull and 1 Harrogate = 8 trains per day).

Calling it an eighth is misleading. Scotland being further away requires a greater proportion of diagram time.

But 7 coaches isn't going to be overkill east of Oxford very often is it?

This quite simply is not a valid response to a comment about what happens west of Oxford, given everyone is talking about a second unit being flung on east of Oxford. Yet again you demonstrate a great difficulty in fathoming portion working as a solution to imbalanced loadings. If you can sort this problem then it won't be nearly so easy for people to keep writing long replies with the aim of disembowelling your assertions, which would be wonderful for all concerned.

 

[jimm]

Given the very high BCR for XC electrification then wiring from Bristol to Birmingham is looking highly likely for CP6. A useful add-on to that scheme would be Swindon to Stonehouse and the lines through Worcester for divisionary purposes which would free up some Bi-mode IEP for use in the south West which could be replaced by electric IEP. If the Worcester end is electrified then I guess it improves the case for wiring the Cotswold line freeing up even more Bi-Mode IEP.

Agreed, a point I have made previously. XC wiring would clearly strengthen the case for Swindon-Standish junction by tackling complex areas like Gloucester triangle, which would never be justified just for an hourly GW train to/from London.

Same goes for Worcester if you want to retain the ability to divert XC trains off the main line east of the city during engineering possessions. Tie it in with Worcester resignalling and Cotswold Line wires and it makes plenty of sense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Calling it an eighth is misleading. Scotland being further away requires a greater proportion of diagram time.

This quite simply is not a valid response to a comment about what happens west of Oxford, given everyone is talking about a second unit being flung on east of Oxford. Yet again you demonstrate a great difficulty in fathoming portion working as a solution to imbalanced loadings. If you can sort this problem then it won't be nearly so easy for people to keep writing long replies with the aim of disembowelling your assertions, which would be wonderful for all concerned.

My apologies, but he will keep raising the same things over and over again.

 

[Rhydgaled]

By having the buffet between first and stanard, not only do you need to reduce the number of seats in the train, you also only 2 coaches of standard seats are within a 2 coach walk of the buffet compared with 4 under the draft layouts. In being located as you sugegst more people would have to walk further to get and further with their hot food than under the suggested draft layouts.

???? Under the suggested draft layout there is nowhere for standard class passengers to walk to in order to get food, just the trolley which comes to the passengers. Even if there is a microwave in the trolley stowage area, how long will it take the trolley to get through the train if it keeps having to go back to the stowage area to get and cook some hot food?

No, what it suggests is that they don't have enough HSTs to cover all the jobs they should be on, as a result of losing one set at a time to the overhaul programme. Before the change, the 180 used on the 15.51 was working on another 'quiet' diagram.

Yes, but if there was a quite diagram they could have taken the IC125 for overhall off they would have done so wouldn't they? They had to take an IC125 from somewhere but the fact that somewhere was a service that a 5-car couldn't handle suggests there were no IC125 diagrams that a 5-car could handle.

I am at a loss to understand what it is about the lighter passenger loadings west of Oxford outside the peaks that you do not understand and why proposing running a train with 600 seats at such times is just plain bonkers.

I do understand, you don't want to be running a 600-seat train on the quieter sections. BUT, lighter loadings past a certain point on an Intercity service is not an easy thing to solve, and I don't think portion working is the way to do it.

Plenty of 86s and 87s didn't get much further than 30 years. Your opinion is not borne out by facts.

Was that because they were life expired though? Some 86s and 87s still work, and not all of those due to preservation. That suggests they were scrapped because they were replaced before they needed to be, just like I fear will happen with 91s.

I though you wanted an all nine-car fleet.

Not necessarily, I just don't want any trains with fewer seats than an IC125 (or which only manage that by squeesing in more seats at the cost of reduced comfort) replacing IC125s, given that I hear of terrible overcrowding on IC125-worked services today. Some 9-car sets are probably needed for the busiset services, but having some 7-car or 8-car sets in the mix as well might work.

No, you are not going to make passengers change at Oxford, because the through service is what has sent traffic on the Cotswold Line on a pretty constant upward curve for 20 years since the Turbos reinstated day-round through working.

I know that, I wouldn't still be entertaining the option of running 7/8/9-car IEPs through to Worcester/Hereford all day if that wasn't the case.

people are also capable of learning things like 'travel in the front portion for such and such a station' - it simply will not be as hard as you make out. And what should it say in the IEP techncal specification but this:

PIS announcements telling a passenger who has arrived at the last minute and boarded at the nearest door that they are in the wrong carriage are USELESS if the train doesn't have corridor connections between units. Moving to the correct portion without getting off the train and risking missing it will then not just be hard but IMPOSSIBLE. Once you get off the train onto the platform, isn't that the same as changing train? You might as well have a connecting DMU service and save all the portion working, duplicated cabs, crumple zones and kitchens malarky. Portion working with 158s is great, with something like an IEP or Voyager it is/will-be a mess.

This quite simply is not a valid response to a comment about what happens west of Oxford, given everyone is talking about a second unit being flung on east of Oxford. Yet again you demonstrate a great difficulty in fathoming portion working as a solution to imbalanced loadings. If you can sort this problem then it won't be nearly so easy for people to keep writing long replies with the aim of disembowelling your assertions, which would be wonderful for all concerned.

I refer you to the above and to:

As I see it, you either need to accept a micro-fleet of arround 5x 5/6-car units to replace 180s on the very few diagrams that would cope or accept you're going to have lightly loaded trains at the extremities or accept that passengers are going to have to change off the IEP onto a DMU at off-peak times to save sending the long trains onto the quieter sections (which, in my opinion, is effectively what portion working with IEPs would be doing anyway, since most passengers apparently board the London end of a train* and it would probably be the front portion going forward).

* Which also means alot sqeesing into 5-car units even when a second unit is attached. The same thing seemed true on Manchester Metrolink, on the rare occasions a double tram appears you are often much more likely to get a seat in the rear unit.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Well its strange, we seem to be ordering hundreds of vehicles right now, a few more won't make any difference.

Well if we are looking long term i certainly agree with you! I was meaning short term, i see no prospect of EMT getting any 158s for 2-3 years at least.

 

[33Hz]

PIS announcements telling a passenger who has arrived at the last minute and boarded at the nearest door that they are in the wrong carriage are USELESS if the train doesn't have corridor connections between units. Moving to the correct portion without getting off the train and risking missing it will then not just be hard but IMPOSSIBLE. Once you get off the train onto the platform, isn't that the same as changing train? You might as well have a connecting DMU service and save all the portion working, duplicated cabs, crumple zones and kitchens malarky. Portion working with 158s is great, with something like an IEP or Voyager it is/will-be a mess.

The French and Germans manage ok with 400 metre double TGV and ICE.


Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, but I thought one of IEP's major strengths was the bi-mode allowing progressive roll out of electrification? :roll:

 

[HSTEd]

So I decided to run the numbers on my proposal to have fixed formations, using the whole Exeter split thing as an example:

Using that handy thread with all the second and first class seat counts in (found here) I discovered that a Class 159 has 24 1st Class and 172 Standard seats, taking us to 196 total.

3 159s in formation would have 72 1st Class and 516 Standard seats, for a total of 588.
I will now do some horrible kitbashing to make up an exemplar of a fixed formation trainset for the route.

An XC Turbostar has 191 Standard and 9 1st Class seats in 3-cars, it also has the disabled facilities and driving cabs required of a combined formation train.
Since modern MUs can manage with no significant intrusion into the passenger saloon throughout the vehicle (no massive 'electrical cabinets' or similar) I can now use XC HST seating plans for the remaining vehicles.

This leaves me short 325 standard and 63 1st Class seats.
4 XC Second Opens with 82 seats each takes care of the 2nd Class, giving us 7 vehicles with 63 1st class seats short and a 3 seat standard class surplus.
Although XC don't have any purely 1st class vehicles without disabled facilities or buffets in them (do they even use those?) I will have to extrapolate but roughly 50 seats seems a reasonable figure.

That leaves us with roughly the same number of seats, perhaps ten down or so overall, but with an entire vehicle missing from the formation (8 cars instead of 9) - as I don't believe 159s are DDA compatible the final figure will likely be even closer to the 159 lashup total.
Although I have mixed HST and Class 170 vehicles this is merely an indication of the sort of thing that CAN be done, not suggesting the final product would look anything like this.

You will need roughly 9 sets in Circulation for the full Exeter-Waterloo run, with 5 sets in circulation for the shortened Salisbury-Waterloo section.
This means that 9x8 = 72 vehicles required for the fixed formation option.
The 6+3 option yields = 54 vehicles assuming that is always the formation but I swear that sometimes 6-car formations reach Exeter, I thought I had seen pictures of it somewhere, so the actual difference is smaller than that.

If you include the second Salisbury service it increases to roughly 112 and 99 respectively. Additionally speed improvements from modern fast accelerating units and 100mph speed limits between Waterloo and Basingstoke will have a proportionally larger effect on the fixed formation option, further reducing the advantage of the shunting/splitting.

In other words, even in this extreme case, its advantage is small and getting smaller.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, but I thought one of IEP's major strengths was the bi-mode allowing progressive roll out of electrification? :roll:

IEP bi-mode is probably going to be a net negative for electrification, as it eliminates the network effect.

 

[tbtc]

Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, but I thought one of IEP's major strengths was the bi-mode allowing progressive roll out of electrification? :roll:

Yes, something that some people seem to miss.

Bi-mode means that we don't have to wait until the wires have reached all the way to Swansea before we can start using IEP on the GWML, they mean that there's a lot more contingency for any delays in the electrification programme, they mean that "main line" services can be easily diverted/ extended.

Since we can't electrify everything all at once, we need a way of allowing electric trains to run under the wires without waiting for everything to be completed.

But some rule bi-mode out because of the weight of dragging diesel engines under the wires (yet don't have a problem with, say, dragging dozens of extra coaches a day beyond Oxford to Hereford).

 

[jimm]

???? Under the suggested draft layout there is nowhere for standard class passengers to walk to in order to get food, just the trolley which comes to the passengers. Even if there is a microwave in the trolley stowage area, how long will it take the trolley to get through the train if it keeps having to go back to the stowage area to get and cook some hot food?

Base all the 'opinions' you like on draft layouts, but as I pointed out above, the bidders to run GW were told in black and white by DfT that they could ask for a different layout, while four options for catering must be allowed for by Agility trains under the IEP specification.

The current management team at FGW turned its face against the trolley plans of their predecessors and had the micro-buffet coaches converted, came up with the Travelling Chef brand, available to all passengers on services where it is provided, and has just increased the number of Pullman restaurants provided, again accessible to all passengers. But they're now just going to have trolleys, are they? Your evidence for this is what?

Yes, but if there was a quite diagram they could have taken the IC125 for overhall off they would have done so wouldn't they? They had to take an IC125 from somewhere but the fact that somewhere was a service that a 5-car couldn't handle suggests there were no IC125 diagrams that a 5-car could handle.

Unless you hadn't noticed FGW's entire fleet is at full stretch. That a 180 is being used on the 15.51 is the least worst option. One that I don't agree with, given the loadings on what is, in effect, the first service of the afternoon peak from London to Oxford and beyond and then leaves Oxford at 16.46, but I can see why they did it. The only other option for stock would have been a Turbo, so even worse.

I do understand, you don't want to be running a 600-seat train on the quieter sections. BUT, lighter loadings past a certain point on an Intercity service is not an easy thing to solve, and I don't think portion working is the way to do it.

So what do you think is the way to solve it? Just saying over and over that 'they should just run big trains everywhere, all the time' is not an answer. In the case of a journey between London and Worcester, that 'certain point' is basically half-way, at 63 miles from Paddington out of the 120 miles, so that's a lot of air being lugged around in your long trains on every off-peak and contra-peak journey beyond Oxford.

Was that because they were life expired though? Some 86s and 87s still work, and not all of those due to preservation. That suggests they were scrapped because they were replaced before they needed to be, just like I fear will happen with 91s.

It suggests they were old and expensive to maintain and operate, being based on 1960s and 1970s technology, so it was decided that they were not worth keeping on - and what were they going to do, with no electrification programme and precious little electric-hauled freight, with plenty of newer Class 90s available anyway? The 86s were notorious track-bashers, even with improved suspensions, so the civil engineers were glad to see the back of them.

Not necessarily, I just don't want any trains with fewer seats than an IC125 (or which only manage that by squeesing in more seats at the cost of reduced comfort) replacing IC125s, given that I hear of terrible overcrowding on IC125-worked services today. Some 9-car sets are probably needed for the busiset services, but having some 7-car or 8-car sets in the mix as well might work.

Well, we could just close our eyes and pretend that there aren't any FGW HSTs running around much of the day with lots of empty seats, but that simply isn't the case. Loadings in the Thames Valley during the peaks are not the same as those off-peak and are still not an excuse to build a fleet of nothing but inflexible 600-seat monster trains. The inflexibility of FGW's fleet without the 180s was painfully exposed when they disappeared in 2008-9 and HSTs proved far too big for many of the jobs they replaced the 180s on, with the only other option being Turbos.

PIS announcements telling a passenger who has arrived at the last minute and boarded at the nearest door that they are in the wrong carriage are USELESS if the train doesn't have corridor connections between units. Moving to the correct portion without getting off the train and risking missing it will then not just be hard but IMPOSSIBLE. Once you get off the train onto the platform, isn't that the same as changing train? You might as well have a connecting DMU service and save all the portion working, duplicated cabs, crumple zones and kitchens malarky. Portion working with 158s is great, with something like an IEP or Voyager it is/will-be a mess.

Which is why you need to get information at the station right as well as on the trains. Amazingly, staff at Oxford do have the ability to get on the PA and address passengers to tell them where they need to be on the platform.

And if you have a pair of 158s that had just been divided in a platform and someone got on the 'wrong' portion, they wouldn't be able to get into the front set anyway because the train had been split and your precious corridor connections closed. There will always be a few people who, despite all the information they are given, are in the 'wrong' set but the operators aren't going to split the sets and instantly send the front one out of the platform like Usain Bolt out of the blocks, are they? So there will be time to shift them.

Get the right information at the stations and on board and you will minimise the number of people needing to move sets. This simply is not the insuperable problem you keep trying to make out that it is.

 

[Zoe]

The current management team at FGW turned its face against the trolley plans of their predecessors and had the micro-buffet coaches converted, came up with the Travelling Chef brand

I seem to remember Travelling Chef's as far back as 2001, did members of the current management team invent that brand even if they were not managing FGW back then?

 

[jimm]

I seem to remember Travelling Chef's as far back as 2001, did members of the current management team invent that brand even if they were not managing FGW back then?

Perhaps it was back in 2001 but the current team certainly made it a coherent, properly promoted brand, and substituted Express Cafe for the (ugh) Refresca cafe-bar or whatever it was called

 

[33Hz]

IEP bi-mode is probably going to be a net negative for electrification, as it eliminates the network effect.

However, if the business case for electrification makes sense for a given route, then it can be done without procuring more rolling stock. The capital outlay will be less and the BCR will be better.

 

[transmanche]

[On the topic of splitting/joining trains en route]

Which is why you need to get information at the station right as well as on the trains. Amazingly, staff at Oxford do have the ability to get on the PA and address passengers to tell them where they need to be on the platform.

And this is central to the problem. There are current examples where trains split/join en route that are very well managed - and there are examples that are poorly managed.

In the former category I put some of the SET Mainline services. In the latter category I put the VT services splitting at Chester (I have boarded services at Crewe where there has been no indication whatsoever that part of the train was bound for Wrexham.)

This is nothing to do with whether or not the train has inter-unit corridor connections, but down to whether both platform and on-board PIS are a) designed with splitting/joining in mind and b) operated properly. Providing that happens, then splitting/joining IEPs en route will not be a problem.

 

[OxtedL]

I do understand, you don't want to be running a 600-seat train on the quieter sections. BUT, lighter loadings past a certain point on an Intercity service is not an easy thing to solve, and I don't think portion working is the way to do it.

We know that's what you think. Although we're yet to see a vaguely compelling argument why. I'll bite this time, then:

I refer you to the above and to: [microfleet quote]

In brief:

• Not really a microfleet: as Cotswolds improves you will need 5 or 6 to run just the basic service, and a further 2 or 3 to strengthen at the east end. Repeat this for most trains to Gloucester, many to Swansea (or indeed perhaps beyond), anything beyond Bristol and anything to Westbury(?) etc where loads are similarly imbalanced and you have plenty in your fleet. This reflects what has been ordered. Also not as many small fleet issues because there are plenty of similar trains around anyway.
• Changing trains is not necessary with portion working (echo?), which isn't incompatible with 'microfleet' as demonstrated above, so this is a silly option.
• Portion working is not equivalent to changing trains. Only a minority in practice have to change portions at the splitting point, and there is time for them to do it (cf Cambridge). The problem you highlight only applies in one direction to a small number of people and does not justify running unnecessarily empty trains around.

I increasingly get the impression you have never used a train which split en-route.

 

[jopsuk]

The Exeter is a special case which is rather unlike the system anywhere else.

Aper from Cambridge, where the unit that comes off the back of a service from Kings Cross can even just wait in the same platform for the incoming service from Kings Lynn.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes, something that some people seem to miss.

Bi-mode means that we don't have to wait until the wires have reached all the way to Swansea before we can start using IEP on the GWML, they mean that there's a lot more contingency for any delays in the electrification programme, they mean that "main line" services can be easily diverted/ extended.

Since we can't electrify everything all at once, we need a way of allowing electric trains to run under the wires without waiting for everything to be completed.

But some rule bi-mode out because of the weight of dragging diesel engines under the wires (yet don't have a problem with, say, dragging dozens of extra coaches a day beyond Oxford to Hereford).

Bi-mode gives the DFT an excuse to extend the electrification process.

Bi-mode trains constantly waste energy.

Lots industry experts say that bi-mode is a stupid idea.

Bi-mode trains are extremely expensive compared to conventional off the shelf emu's.

Next.....

 

[tbtc]

Bi-mode gives the DFT an excuse to extend the electrification process.

Bi-mode trains constantly waste energy.

Lots industry experts say that bi-mode is a stupid idea.

Bi-mode trains are extremely expensive compared to conventional off the shelf emu's.

Next.....

Don't you want electrification to be extended elsewhere?

Obviously there are more complicated (and therefore more expensive and much more useful) than a fully electric train, am not pretending otherwise.

But it'd also be a waste of energy to run a diesel train hundreds of miles under the wires each day (yet people worry about the cost of the fuel tanks when running a bi-mode service that distance under the wires).

 

[jimm]

Bi-mode gives the DFT an excuse to extend the electrification process.

Bi-mode trains constantly waste energy.

Lots industry experts say that bi-mode is a stupid idea.

Bi-mode trains are extremely expensive compared to conventional off the shelf emu's.

Next.....

And buying expensive, bespoke diesels to drag electric units around won't give them an excuse either?

We could also go into the energy efficiency of other types of rolling stock, like diesels, which isn't necessarily sparkling either.

But other people take the view that building expensive, bespoke, thirsty, high-power, high-acceleration diesel locos to drag electric units around isn't that great an idea either.

Conventional off the shelf emus require a supply of electricity, something that is not going to be available across all the GWML routes as of 2017-18. And the key aspects of the trains are going to be proven off-the-shelf technology from Hitachi. The French don't seem overly worried about the cost, given there are lots of bi-modes in use there and more to come. They value the flexibility and the ability to run on routes where bits are wired and others aren't, rather like the situation we face...

Aper from Cambridge, where the unit that comes off the back of a service from Kings Cross can even just wait in the same platform for the incoming service from Kings Lynn.

A method of operating that is also expected to apply at Oxford once the station is rebuilt, removing any need for shunt moves there. And could presumably also be performed on platform 1 at Swindon.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I am still not convinced that portion working without split destinations is worth it. (So for example Liverpool-Norwich with 4 cars LIverpool-Nottingham and 2 cars Nottingham-Norwich)

Once you consider the operational problems and the additional costs it starts to look like a false economy, additional staff, additional vehicles, reduced capacity over the 'busy' end of the route and all that.

The marginal savings seem to be just that, pretty marginal.

So where do you expect people to sit. On the roof?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well its strange, we seem to be ordering hundreds of vehicles right now, a few more won't make any difference.

But none of those are DMU's are they? And that route is not going to be electrified for a long, long time.

 

[HSTEd]

However, if the business case for electrification makes sense for a given route, then it can be done without procuring more rolling stock. The capital outlay will be less and the BCR will be better.

There are very few remaining routes that are not already in the programme that will be able to support electrification on that basis.

Essentially without the network effect the programme stops after main line completion, which is surprisingly close.

So where do you expect people to sit. On the roof?

No on all the seats, with the train having essentially the same capacity as before despite its shorter length? - See the calculations in my previous long post.

When you aren't throwing away space on duplications of disabled facilities and on pointless inner cabs that you wouldn't be using anyway you can make the train shorter?
EDIT:

With specific reference to the Norwich Liverpool example, I would propose a fixed formation 4-car set operate the service throughout.
Or perhaps even IEP to make use of the large scale electrification on the route assuming it can be rerouted over the Chat Moss line.

But none of those are DMU's are they? And that route is not going to be electrified for a long, long time.

Well I am constantly told that we will need to order new DMUs because there will be no way to electrify fast enough (when in fact it is that there is no way the politicians will pay for it) but now I am told that there will be no DMU orders for years.

Which is it?

Don't you want electrification to be extended elsewhere?

By removing the Network Effect you will reduce the amount of track that is electrified because if it cannot support it in its own right it will not get done as an add on to an existing scheme to allow conversion of longer distance services.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Since we can't electrify everything all at once, we need a way of allowing electric trains to run under the wires without waiting for everything to be completed.

Phased introduction of electric trains? As the wires reach the next suitable place, withdraw some more diesel trains and introduce the new electric. Of course this means dragging out life-expired diesel trains a few more years to allow the wires to be put up but you get the full benifits once the wires are up. Also, the presence of new bi-modes running (on diesel power) on a section would hurt the case for wiring that section until the bi-mode is life-expired (or, in the case of IEP, the case for removing the diesel component stacks up, probably at the end of the 10 year engine lease), unless there is an obvious and useful cascade for the bi-mode.

But some rule bi-mode out because of the weight of dragging diesel engines under the wires (yet don't have a problem with, say, dragging dozens of extra coaches a day beyond Oxford to Hereford).

I do see a problem with running more coaches than necessary beyond Oxford, but I also. Also, I don't rule out bi-mode when it is a choice of that or diesel, or a change of train. Then the options need to be carefully weighed up. But with the Great Western and East Coast Intercity networks, I really think that the vast majority could have been running straight-electric trains by the end of 2025, hence my objection to bi-mode INTERCITY trains.

Well I am constantly told that we will need to order new DMUs because there will be no way to electrify fast enough (when in fact it is that there is no way the politicians will pay for it) but now I am told that there will be no DMU orders for years.

Which is it?

Both. We can't wire fast enough to handle all capacity issues just with new EMUs, but we can wire fast enough that new DMUs could be redundant before life-expiry. So, we need new DMUs in the short term but not many in the long term so the ROSCOs won't buy new DMUs.

That, in my opinion, is where bi-mode comes in. Not on ICEC and IC-GWML, but on regional express. Something like a bi-mode version of class 444 (or 175 with corridor connections on the ends) to do things like Cardiff - Portsmouth, Waterloo - Exeter and perhaps Liverpool - Norwich. That releases lots of 158s and 159s to play with elsewhere. A straight-electric version of this 444-esque bi-mode would be useful for TPE electrification (and the north Wales coast line if it get wired).

Base all the 'opinions' you like on draft layouts, but as I pointed out above, the bidders to run GW were told in black and white by DfT that they could ask for a different layout, while four options for catering must be allowed for by Agility trains under the IEP specification.

The current management team at FGW turned its face against the trolley plans of their predecessors and had the micro-buffet coaches converted, came up with the Travelling Chef brand, available to all passengers on services where it is provided, and has just increased the number of Pullman restaurants provided, again accessible to all passengers. But they're now just going to have trolleys, are they? Your evidence for this is what?

No evidence for that, that's no what I've been trying to say. The DfT's policy, evidenced by the draft layouts, is to give standard a trolley only. FirstGW may well object to that, or they may be happy with providing the Pullman service to First class passengers only on IEP. I'm not making any claims either way regarding what FirstGW want, but DfT have gone for trolley in standard. FirstGW can ask DfT to change it, but will they? And if so, will DfT listen?

Unless you hadn't noticed FGW's entire fleet is at full stretch. That a 180 is being used on the 15.51 is the least worst option.

Exactly, least worst option. Of all the IC125s they could have replaced with a 180 to cover for overhaul, they chose this one. If that was the least worst option, replacing any other IC125 diagram with an 180 would have been even worse.

I don't deny that FirstGW had no choice, but if you can't replace any IC125 diagram with a 180 without causing problems then the only INTERCITY trains on Great Western you can replace with a single 5-car IEP without problems are the class 180 diagrams other than the busy one that would be an IC125 if they had one available. 5-car is too short to replace 2+8.

So what do you think is the way to solve it? Just saying over and over that 'they should just run big trains everywhere, all the time' is not an answer.

I don't think portion working is an answer either, particularly as it means an extra 26 meters of wasted train length when sets are running in multiple.

with no electrification programme and precious little electric-hauled freight, with plenty of newer Class 90s available anyway?

Sounds exactly like the 91s if they are thrown off the East Coast then, scrapheap early because there are other locomotives available which would be more useful for any other work they could get.

Loadings in the Thames Valley during the peaks are not the same as those off-peak and are still not an excuse to build a fleet of nothing but inflexible 600-seat monster trains. The inflexibility of FGW's fleet without the 180s was painfully exposed when they disappeared in 2008-9 and HSTs proved far too big for many of the jobs they replaced the 180s on, with the only other option being Turbos.

Yes, but they don't need many 180s do they? And I'm not saying the new trains all need to be 600-seat trains, just that they need a minimum of 7 coaches (but some 9-car ones are probably going to be needed).

Get the right information at the stations and on board and you will minimise the number of people needing to move sets. This simply is not the insuperable problem you keep trying to make out that it is.

Doesn't solve my last minute passenger example does it?

I increasingly get the impression you have never used a train which split en-route.

I have used the Cambrian line service to Aberystwyth on a number of occasions. As it happens, I've always been at Shrewsbury in plenty of time and waited at the Aberystwyth end of the platform, but if I was cutting it fine I wouldn't worry about being in the wrong portion and jump on the nearest coach, knowing I could just walk forwards through the train before Machynlleth to get into the right portion before the split. If they didn't have corridor connections and I got on the wrong portion, I'd worry about missing the right one when I got off and having two hours to wait for the next one. With the Cotswolds line, which I haven't used, it'd only be an hour to wait rather than two, but the point still stands.

 

[edwin_m]

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.