IEP Construction Progress

[tbtc]

I didn't say IEP did I? I said bi-mode. Can't Alstom put diesel engines in a new Pendolino? Virgin chose loco-drags over trying to obtain a bi-mode tilting train or sticking with diesels under the wires

All bi-mode trains are IEP though - its not realistic to judge Virgin for not trying to get a tiny fleet of 125mph bi mode stock that also tilts.

It may be reasonable to judge them on abandoning drags on Holyhead services because of the unreliability of coupling over many years though - they tried, they accepted that it wasn't reliable.

Costs energy to recycle the metal though. I'm not saying don't recycle, but make do and mend as long as you can before throwing your stuff in the recycle bin. And do they actually salvage the lot into useful products or does some of the metal end up in anti-bacterial soap?

"Making do and mending" on the ECML is going to mean problems pathing sluggish 225s between the IEPs though - is that really a price worth paying just because you have some artificial "best before" date for stock?

The 67s manage the Aberdeen and Inverness routes on the sleeper don't they?

...on relatively slow services, where they aren't so many other services to get in the way of.

Very wrongly, I am utterly dismayed at their decision to scrap 91s 10 years early and if I can make them change their mind I will

"You must keep stock in service for a round number of thirty years, or else?"

 

[47802]

"You must keep stock in service for a round number of thirty years, or else?"

Presumably Rhydgaled was equally dismayed when a lot of MK2 stock was scrapped around 25 to 30 years old, and the class 58's after less than 20 years.

 

[Rhydgaled]

They have not said they will be scrapped will you stop saying that. They will be available for other people to use on an significantly increasing electric network.

They have as good as said 91s will be withdrawn and scrapped in 2020. They have said the 91s will be replaced on the East Coast and they are also introducing IEPs on the Great Western. That doesn't really leave anywhere for the 91s, being high speed Intercity locos, to go. The obvious, option of sending the mrk4s to London-Norwich, would likely see 90s or TraXX rather than 91s as haulage. And the tilt modification was never done which rules out the WCML too.

So we have a standard Intercity Train but you are suggesting 2 different solutions Bi Mode for 1 route and Diesel Dragging for a another!!

Yep, bi-mode for Great Western and loco-drags for East Coast. The suituation is different with the two franchises, why shouldn't there be two different solutions?

Your persistence in using the term 'DaFT' throughout this thread suggests you don't have the ability to competently contradict their thinking, and is becoming annoying.

I didn't invent the term, it has been used by others on the railway forums I visit. The department has been reported to be insufficently competent with respect to decisions regarding the railways by sources far more reputable than a mere passenger and public transport enthusiast like myself.

Whilst it is true that there could be the potential for cost savings by pooling with the sleepers, this is only one or possibly two out of maybe six or seven, so isn't as substantial as you might think, a lot of the cost being the baseline for having any in the first place.(Although it would greatly improve the apparent financial situation of the sleeper.)

There are currently three highland sleeper portions, each requiring one loco diagram, right? That incurs the baseline costs for having locos in the first place, doesn't it? Without tinkering with the timetable to optimise diagrams, I reckon the East Coast Aberdeen and Inverness services would add three additional loco diagrams to the sleeper pool, for a total of six. Tinker with the timetable though and you should be able do the three sleepers and the East Coast Aberdeen and Inverness runs with four diagrams, just one loco more than now rather than an estimated 7 bi-mode diagrams (now can you see why I don't think East Coast has enough off-wire work to need a diesel fleet?)

Designing a bi-mode tilting train suffers from the same expense problem as designing a tilting version of IEP. In fact, they must be very nearly equivalent statements

I disagree that the statements are nearly equivalent. To me at least, adding (a) diesel generator(s) into a tilting train design sounds a lot less technically challanging than adapting a non-tilt design to a tilting one. You wouldn't want to do it to existing Pendolinos though, and granted adding (a) diesel generator(s) to the design for new Pendolinos would still need development work (unless they already in existance somewhere).

EC didn't have these constraints when ordering new trains, and lo they went for bi-mode.

Correction, they didn't go for bi-mode, the department for transport did. We don't know what franchise bidders would have wanted if the rolling stock wasn't mandated, but there have been allegations that somebody at the department had vested interests with Hitachi and influenced the decision. I have read phrase "the answer's Hitachi, now what's the question".

I'm confused as to why you now accept bi-mode for the Cotswolds but not for very similar routes (mainly less than or equal to 100mph, plenty of stops, etc) - you then lose quite a lot of the benefit by only having one standard thing, which surely underpins your whole argument for an all electric EC.

Which similar routes I you refering to? Part of my reasoning for accepting bi-mode IEP on the Cotswolds is that arround half the route is to be electrified and the remaining half is a considerable distance (so would need a fair few locos for drags or alot more wires to completely electrify). Another reason is that the split frequency (hourly to Worcester, but with some continuing to Hereford) pushes it some way down the list in terms of electrification priorities. Conversely, Cheltenham and Weston-Super-Mare will probably see an hourly IEP service which would require a relatively short extension of OHLE to convert to electric traction. As things stand, the PAD-Penzance route would have such a small percentage of electrification that the savings under the wires would likely be outweighed by increased fuel consumption required for IEP's more rapid acceleration compared with an IC125. Over that distance, there's also the comment from First Great Western about passengers not wanting the underfloor engine noise of class 222s on that route.

I'm intrigued to know what difference you think you can personally make.

Me too. I'd like to, but there was an 'if' in that sentance. Maybe it should have been a very big 'if'. Writting letters/e-mails is the only weapon I have.

 

[jimm]

Part of my reasoning for accepting bi-mode IEP on the Cotswolds

Oh really? You missed out the bit about this being subject to it being a 620-plus seat monster which will spend most of its life running around half-empty, piling on operating costs for no reason and undermining the viability of the route.

Writting letters/e-mails is the only weapon I have.

So go and write them and stop repeating the same old arguments, going round and round in circles, here.

PS: The 67s operating the Scotrail sleepers have nice leisurely timings, eg Aberdeen-Edinburgh is about 3hrs 30 minutes, over an hour more than HSTs, which don't hammer track like a 67, so no indication of how they would go on a fast passenger timing - would Network Rail even allow it?. And you would probably need rather more locos in the pool than you imagine, as the four 67s that can be used on the West Highland Line have cast-iron brake blocks, due to the heavy braking demands of that route, which means they are limited to 80mph at all times.

 

[YorkshireBear]

We have got past circles now. We are into Lewis Hamilton Doughnuts now!

67s will not be able to drag a 9 car IEP well at all over the hills of Scotland. And as stated above the sleeper timings are leisurely and offer no proof. They are leisurely also because they have 3-5 carriages. Not 9.

 

[The Ham]

They have as good as said 91s will be withdrawn and scrapped in 2020. They have said the 91s will be replaced on the East Coast and they are also introducing IEPs on the Great Western. That doesn't really leave anywhere for the 91s, being high speed Intercity locos, to go. The obvious, option of sending the mrk4s to London-Norwich, would likely see 90s or TraXX rather than 91s as haulage. And the tilt modification was never done which rules out the WCML too.

Even if they had stayed on the ECML there was the possibility that they would have been replaced by TraXX anyway, so there demise is not directly related to IEP.

Yep, bi-mode for Great Western and loco-drags for East Coast. The suituation is different with the two franchises, why shouldn't there be two different solutions?

There are currently three highland sleeper portions, each requiring one loco diagram, right? That incurs the baseline costs for having locos in the first place, doesn't it? Without tinkering with the timetable to optimise diagrams, I reckon the East Coast Aberdeen and Inverness services would add three additional loco diagrams to the sleeper pool, for a total of six. Tinker with the timetable though and you should be able do the three sleepers and the East Coast Aberdeen and Inverness runs with four diagrams, just one loco more than now rather than an estimated 7 bi-mode diagrams (now can you see why I don't think East Coast has enough off-wire work to need a diesel fleet?)

Under the current frequency and assumming a load of extra wiring then there could be an argument for not having bi-modal trains on EC. However, it would mean a load of wiring to be built in the next 4 years when NR are already doing a lot (e.g. Northern Hub and GWML) and would mean that the sleeper locos would not be able to be maintained during the day, requiring a spare to cover that, which would (even if it were hired in as needed) would push the costs up.

The other advantage is that it can allow some EC services to carry on running if the ECML needs to have work carred out on it by being able to divert them around on a non electrified route. The same applies for GWML, where say if there were works between Didcot and Swindon trains could divert via the B&H.

I disagree that the statements are nearly equivalent. To me at least, adding (a) diesel generator(s) into a tilting train design sounds a lot less technically challanging than adapting a non-tilt design to a tilting one. You wouldn't want to do it to existing Pendolinos though, and granted adding (a) diesel generator(s) to the design for new Pendolinos would still need development work (unless they already in existance somewhere).

Why develop a bi-modal Pendolino when coverting the 221's to be bi-modal should be easier? However as that has been ruled out as too costly, then its likely that doing something similar to the Pendolino would likely be also prohibitive. In the mean time ICWC can just carry on using the 221's whilst electrification fills in the gaps in their network, with the number of 221's being reduced over time.

Which similar routes I you refering to? Part of my reasoning for accepting bi-mode IEP on the Cotswolds is that arround half the route is to be electrified and the remaining half is a considerable distance (so would need a fair few locos for drags or alot more wires to completely electrify). Another reason is that the split frequency (hourly to Worcester, but with some continuing to Hereford) pushes it some way down the list in terms of electrification priorities. Conversely, Cheltenham and Weston-Super-Mare will probably see an hourly IEP service which would require a relatively short extension of OHLE to convert to electric traction. As things stand, the PAD-Penzance route would have such a small percentage of electrification that the savings under the wires would likely be outweighed by increased fuel consumption required for IEP's more rapid acceleration compared with an IC125. Over that distance, there's also the comment from First Great Western about passengers not wanting the underfloor engine noise of class 222s on that route.

Although the whole length of committed electrification for the GWML leaves some farily short distances to places like Weston-Super-Mare IEP, IEP is due to be started to be delivered during the construction of the wiring. It therefore allows (for instance) Swansea to be served by the new trains before all the wiring has been compleated. Alternitively it would require either GW to leave their shiny new trains in depots and carry on using HST's for a period of time (extra costs) or we need to dramaticly increase the speed at which we are wiring up the committed wiring so that we can get all the extra wiring needed done within the time frame required (also extra costs, but also potentially a lot more disruption as more evening works could well be needed).

Therefore by developing a train which costs a bit more than a standard off the self train, but is bi-modal, those extra costs can be avoided but leave you with a train which is much more versitile for the long term. It also allows other routes to be wired up avoiding the need for DMU's to be ordered which reduces the railway's costs elsewhere.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Under the current frequency and assumming a load of extra wiring then there could be an argument for not having bi-modal trains on EC.

But without extra wiring you still only need a very small number of bi-mode diagrams. Maybe my suggestion of sharing a fleet with the MML was a better one then, aside from the fact you'd need to clear the MML for IEP's longer coaches.

Why develop a bi-modal Pendolino when coverting the 221's to be bi-modal should be easier? However as that has been ruled out as too costly, then its likely that doing something similar to the Pendolino would likely be also prohibitive.

Prohibitive to modify an existing train, yes, but if ordering new trains?

Although the whole length of committed electrification for the GWML leaves some farily short distances to places like Weston-Super-Mare IEP, IEP is due to be started to be delivered during the construction of the wiring. It therefore allows (for instance) Swansea to be served by the new trains before all the wiring has been compleated. Alternitively it would require either GW to leave their shiny new trains in depots and carry on using HST's for a period of time (extra costs) or we need to dramaticly increase the speed at which we are wiring up the committed wiring so that we can get all the extra wiring needed done within the time frame required (also extra costs, but also potentially a lot more disruption as more evening works could well be needed.

I admit that is an advantage of the bi-mode, but for such short term gain is it really worth ordering more bi-modes than will be needed once the program is complete for said short term gain? I personally don't think so.

 

[The Ham]

But without extra wiring you still only need a very small number of bi-mode diagrams. Maybe my suggestion of sharing a fleet with the MML was a better one then, aside from the fact you'd need to clear the MML for IEP's longer coaches.

I can see that would work and would release the 222's to be used elsewhere (wherever that would be), however no decision has been made about stock for the MML, but in the meantime the current order seams to be fairly reasonable as it allows new services to be run if EC so desire.

Prohibitive to modify an existing train, yes, but if ordering new trains?

... so bi-modal is bad for EC and most of GW but not WC? If by providing EC & GW with bi-modal trains it means that the wiring of the gaps in the services on WC can be wired up in (say) 2020/21 (or at least long before the 221's become life expired) without the need for any additional bi-modal stock then that has to be an advantage. If WC got bi-modal as well then we'd really have to much of it, especially as it would would not be compatible with IEP so would be a micro fleet.

I admit that is an advantage of the bi-mode, but for such short term gain is it really worth ordering more bi-modes than will be needed once the program is complete for said short term gain? I personally don't think so.

Depends on how long short term is. If by using bi-modal IEP for 15-20 years after introduction to run to Penzance, Hereford, Highlands, and maybe a few other places (although maybe some of those routes may get more wires) it means that we have time to wire up a lot of other (more regional) services and therefore have to order less DMU's. In doing so, even if you only save the need to lease 50 DMU coaches over 20 years then in today's prices that is a saving of £10 million just in leasing costs (where a DMU coach costs £110,000 per year and an EMU coach costs £100,000 per year).

 

[47802]

Yet again Rhydgaled you overlook the convienence and flexibility that the Hybrids will have.

As I keep pointing out the East coast has very little wired diversionary routes as will the GW, and the hybrids will offer far more flexibility in this.

Your also basing your assumptions on the current east coast timetable which will probably change significantly during the lifespan of IEP, assuming HS2 runs to schedule then there is likely to be an increased focus on destinations not served by HS2 and possibly even some IEP's might get moved elsewhere.

You talk about sharing Hybrids with the Midland Line, yes that might not be a bad idea except we don't actually know what will be used on the midland yet.

Anybody would think that the way you talk that there will be loads hybrid IEP on the East Coast when in reality the majority will be electric and those that are hybrid will be roughly equivalent to 18 HST's (13 nine car and 5 x 2 five car) as opposed to the 15 HST's the East Coast is currently using.

You then go on about wanting the hybrid for GW and Loco Hauled for EC so lets increase the cost of IEP, I assume that IEP will only be designed for Loco Haulage in an emergency but you want a design that can accommodate regular Loco Haulage, and also a Loco that haul around conventional Sleeper stock and IEP on a regular basis, while the solution the problem ie Hybrid IEP already exists, then of course you can talk to Network Rail about blocking their platforms for 10 to 15 min's while you mess about trying to attach a Loco.

 

[tbtc]

They have as good as said 91s will be withdrawn and scrapped in 2020

Who are "they"?

Where have they said this?

They have said the 91s will be replaced on the East Coast and they are also introducing IEPs on the Great Western. That doesn't really leave anywhere for the 91s, being high speed Intercity locos, to go. The obvious, option of sending the mrk4s to London-Norwich, would likely see 90s or TraXX rather than 91s as haulage

As previously discussed (like most of these arguments!), there are a few other routes that 91s could work on post-IEP:

Liverpool to Newcastle?
Manchester to Glasgow/ Edinburgh?
Sheffield/ Nottingham to London?
Manchester to Southampton?

That's if they are still in a fit state by 2020 and worth spending money on upgrading (compared to the cost of brand new stock) of course

 

[The Ham]

Back on Topic....

http://www.globalrailnews.com/2014/01/15/hitachi-etcs-equipment-certified-for-use-with-iep/

New trains delivered as part of the £5.8 billion Intercity Express Programme (IEP) will be fitted with Hitachi’s own ETCS signalling system, the company has announced.

Hitachi confirmed today (January 15) that its onboard solution had now been successfully certified in accordance with European standards on interoperability following its ‘Verification-Train 3′ testing programme on the Cambrian Line.

Trial runs were carried out by a retro-fitted Network Rail Class 97 locomotive to see how well Hitachi’s ETCS system communicated with the Ansaldo STS lineside equipment already installed as a testbed for ERTMS in the UK.

Testing had to be carried out to ensure the technology’s compatibility with other suppliers given the framework contract already agreed by Network Rail with Signalling Solutions Ltd, Invensys Rail, Infrasig and Ansaldo STS.

Between now and 2022, Network Rail is aiming to install ERTMS on sections of the Great Western main line (GWML), East Coast main line (ECML) and Midland main line. In that same period, Hitachi will begin delivering the 92 Class 800 trains which will replace Intercity 125s on the GWML and 30 new Class 801 vehicles for the ECML.

 

[swt_passenger]

In that same period, Hitachi will begin delivering the 92 Class 800 trains which will replace Intercity 125s on the GWML and 30 new Class 801 vehicles for the ECML.

That's a good example of how confusion starts, isn't it. They must have been thinking of the 253s and 254s...

 

[joeykins82]

Well the total number (122 sets) is correct, just that the rest is inaccurate. I remember correcting the wikipedia articles on the 800 and 801 a few months back where there were similar errors about what class of IEP trains were ending up where.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Ansaldo supply signalling equipment? Is it safe?

 

[edwin_m]

Ansaldo supply signalling equipment? Is it safe?

As well as the ERTMS on the Cambrian, Ansaldo have supplied conventional (ish) signalling that has been approved and worked safely for several years around Cheadle Hulme, admittedly a much smaller area than initially planned. So whatever else people might say I don't think we should question its safety.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Who are "they"?

Where have they said this?



As previously discussed (like most of these arguments!), there are a few other routes that 91s could work on post-IEP:

Liverpool to Newcastle?
Manchester to Glasgow/ Edinburgh?
Sheffield/ Nottingham to London?
Manchester to Southampton?

That's if they are still in a fit state by 2020 and worth spending money on upgrading (compared to the cost of brand new stock) of course

I think you can rule out the MML. Their acceleration is not good enough given the number of stations. What is required is a 125 mph EMU with tilt capability.

 

[SkinnyDave]

I think you can rule out the MML. Their acceleration is not good enough given the number of stations. What is required is a 125 mph EMU with tilt capability.

As does the Scotland to Manchester Services

 

[RichmondCommu]

Why scrap trains that are not life expired?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Bi-modes gives them the opportunity to delay electrification as much as they want.

At the end of the day though the order has been signed, bi-modes will happen. I just hope they are an unmitigated failure so no more are built.

This is classic play ground stuff! Don't be so ridiculous! Toys, pram anyone? Hitachi know that they have to get this right if they are to win further orders in Europe. It's pathetic to write something off before you've even seen the damn thing!

 

[tbtc]

I think you can rule out the MML. Their acceleration is not good enough given the number of stations. What is required is a 125 mph EMU with tilt capability.

If the current timetable remains then the "fast" Sheffield/ Nottingham services would be broadly comparable to the London - Leeds/ York services that the 91s run, in terms of stops per mile.

I don't know whether tilting would give sufficient time savings on the MML to warrant the problems of narrower bodies - I certainly don't expect it to be anything like as pronounced as on the WCML (where non-tilting stock is limited to 110mph).

Plus, given the state of the 91s, I'm maybe only talking until 2025 or so - eking a few more years out of them on the MML whilst we wait and see whether longer trains will create an increase in demand (since there are more seats than on a four/five coach 222, more chance of getting a seat = more attractive for casual users?).

As does the Scotland to Manchester Services

Scotland to Manchester involves stopping at Motherwell/ Lockerbie/ Penrith/ Oxenholme etc - its not as fast as the London services - but a reasonable distance between stops for 91s - again, am only talking about a few years whilst we assess demand.

 

[Haydn1971]

Plus, given the state of the 91s, I'm maybe only talking until 2025 or so - eking a few more years out of them on the MML whilst we wait and see whether longer trains will create an increase in demand (since there are more seats than on a four/five coach 222, more chance of getting a seat = more attractive for casual users?).

Spot on, gradual cascades from the ECML as the 80x units come online, gradually displacing the Meridians on the electrified sections of the MML as it works it's way north. I'd expect a cheap refurb of seat covers, carpets, lighting etc to ensure that the Mk4's don't feel like a downgrade from the Meridians, then roll into the next order of electric express trains - probably a new class as the 800/801 will be an outdated (new) design by the mid 2020's. Class 802 anyone

 

[The Ham]

I think you can rule out the MML. Their acceleration is not good enough given the number of stations. What is required is a 125 mph EMU with tilt capability.

Given the line speeds for HST's are being upgraded to 125mph at present I doubt that tilting would gain much.

Also is the 225's were to be reduced in length by 1 coach then the acceleration issue would be less of a problem. However, they are likely to only be of use on the MML for a short time.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I see no reason 91s cant see out there life on the MML then get brand new from there. We can't just go buying trains willy nilly. Of course the 91s should maybe move to a line where their replacement can tie in with ETCS which from what i know of the timescale the MML would be perfect.

 

[RichmondCommu]

If the current timetable remains then the "fast" Sheffield/ Nottingham services would be broadly comparable to the London - Leeds/ York services that the 91s run, in terms of stops per mile.

However, assuming that the whole fleet is transferred to the MML there are plenty of "semi fast" as opposed to "fast" services where the 225's would surely lose time against even the current Meridians

I don't know whether tilting would give sufficient time savings on the MML to warrant the problems of narrower bodies - I certainly don't expect it to be anything like as pronounced as on the WCML (where non-tilting stock is limited to 110mph).

In all fairness there is a big difference between expectation and the reality of travel! South of Leicester there are several severe curves that will never be solved by realignment. The approach to Long Eaton is another and the route from Ambergate to Clay Cross also has its fair share of curves that prevent 125 mph running.

And don't forget with regard to the WCML with the exception of the tilting stock nothing else is capable of anything more than 110 mph!

Plus, given the state of the 91s, I'm maybe only talking until 2025 or so - eking a few more years out of them on the MML whilst we wait and see whether longer trains will create an increase in demand (since there are more seats than on a four/five coach 222, more chance of getting a seat = more attractive for casual users?).

But surely the DfT would be looking to build five coach units from the start? In terms of longer trains this will always be restricted by the length of the platforms at St Pancras and split units would seem to be the sensible option for the off peak.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Given the line speeds for HST's are being upgraded to 125mph at present I doubt that tilting would gain much.

Also is the 225's were to be reduced in length by 1 coach then the acceleration issue would be less of a problem. However, they are likely to only be of use on the MML for a short time.

But there are plenty of curves on the MML that restrict speeds to much less than 100 mph. Removing those restrictions would speed up journey times.

If you start reducing the length of the 225's you immediately create over crowding at peak times. With a fleet of five car tilting EMU's you don't have this problem. Not only that but with the current frequencies a full length 225 would not be sensible during the off-peak.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I see no reason 91s cant see out there life on the MML then get brand new from there. We can't just go buying trains willy nilly. Of course the 91s should maybe move to a line where their replacement can tie in with ETCS which from what i know of the timescale the MML would be perfect.

In which case why not move the fleet to the GEML? No really sharp curves to speak of and the mk3's are life expired. And nothing like the number of stops that you have on the MML (at least that I can see).

 

[YorkshireBear]

In which case why not move the fleet to the GEML? No really sharp curves to speak of and the mk3's are life expired. And nothing like the number of stops that you have on the MML (at least that I can see).

GEML would be equally suitable. 90s can move back to freight operations on an ever increasing freight electrified network.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Spot on, gradual cascades from the ECML as the 80x units come online, gradually displacing the Meridians on the electrified sections of the MML as it works it's way north. I'd expect a cheap refurb of seat covers, carpets, lighting etc to ensure that the Mk4's don't feel like a downgrade from the Meridians, then roll into the next order of electric express trains - probably a new class as the 800/801 will be an outdated (new) design by the mid 2020's. Class 802 anyone

But then you would be running full length 225's during the off peak that would be half empty. I would have thought that it would be highly unlikely that electric trains would be introduced until Bedford to Sheffield / Nottingham was fully electrified.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

GEML would be equally suitable. 90s can move back to freight operations on an ever increasing freight electrified network.

I concur. And the mk4's are likely to be in a much better state than the GEML mk3's which can then go for scrapping.

 

[jimm]

Although the whole length of committed electrification for the GWML leaves some farily short distances to places like Weston-Super-Mare IEP

Yes, it is a short distance by comparison with Swindon-Gloucester/Cheltenham or the Cotswold Line, but as I have previously pointed out, the reason that most FGW HSTs go to Weston now is not because of huge demand for through travel to and from London but because they provide a lot of extra capacity to handle commuters going to and from Bristol, from Weston and the likes of Yatton and Nailsea & Backwell. Just look at the service pattern.

From Weston on weekday mornings they are roughly half-hourly to Bristol and on to London from 06.20 until 07.50 Two of which start back at Exeter and Taunton, so not great for electric traction, even if Weston were wired, then a 09.29 call by a service from Paignton to Paddington, then nothing until 17.10, 18.08 and a 22.01 call by a Taunton-London train.

The first HST from London to Weston on a weekday leaves Bristol TM at 11.40 - the Torbay 'Express'. The next HST from Bristol is at 16.15, then 17.15, 18.14, 19.12, 20.13 and 21.15, plus a 23.32 departure on an HST bound for Exeter. On Saturdays the first HST out of Bristol is at 18.18, with four more in the evening, two of these going on to Taunton

And yet this lop-sided, patchy service, with about half the trains starting or terminating at Taunton and in Devon, or using marginal time at the start or end of journeys for what are fundamentally London-Bristol trains, is supposed to justify wiring to Weston... sorry, but this one is just going to have to wait, even if, in Rhydgaled-land, they just should electrify this instant. I suppose 600-plus seats per train would be handy for the commuters of North Somerset, but with an influx of Turbos to boost capacity in the Bristol area pending further electrification, will many IEPs be needed south of Temple Meads anyway?

 

[dubscottie]

I am reading through my archive of old railway magazines at the moment..

What is being proposed at the moment will be nothing like what comes out the factory..

East coast 225 etc is a good example.. Anyone with old copies of Modern Railways will know what I mean.

Even then there were idiots in jobs coming up with stupid ideas… As with the IEP.

I think when the IEP starts mass production, it will be nothing like the plans.

I would love to know how a IEP coach could go north of Edinburgh though.. I know Mk4's can't go round the curve in Burntisland..

 

[jimm]

Surely non-tilting stock is only limited to 110 mph to avoid getting in the way of the Pendolinos? Don't forget that freight runs on the WCML at much less than 110 mph and I don't recall the class 86's or indeed the 87's being able to run at 110 mph.

The freight is not on the fast lines.

The 87s - and some 86s - most certainly did run at 110mph from the mid-1980s.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The freight is not on the fast lines.

What about north of Preston? There are only two tracks up Shap!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 87s - and some 86s - most certainly did run at 110mph from the mid-1980s.

Fair do's I didn't realise that all the 87's had been modified.

 

[Haydn1971]

But then you would be running full length 225's during the off peak that would be half empty.

A quick Google suggests that in 2010, an electric train costs 66p per mile to maintain and run, vs 107p for a diesel train - the track access costs are 11.85 p for Mk4 carriages vs 10.55p for a 222 car, plus 40.58p per Class 91, 11.67p per DVT - mix in the (by then) cheaper rental cost of an end of life 225. Well you can do the sums, but I'd say the cost of fuel is the swing factor and would make (without adding prices up as I sit on my 142 travelling to Leeds) pretty similar for running a full length 225 vs a 5 car 222

I would have thought that it would be highly unlikely that electric trains would be introduced until Bedford to Sheffield / Nottingham was fully electrified.

Why wait, if you have electric express trains to cascade to part of a route, means you can displace earlier part of a fleet of Meridians to either service a demand elsewhere on the MML or help out elsewhere, Liverpool to Nottingham or perhaps CrossCountry - are you seriously suggesting that the 225's would just sit idle for a few years whilst diesels run under wires ?