IEP & Thameslink

[tbtc]

Bolton-Manchester probably has the highest average loadings for Northern services as unlike some other routes it has high patronage all day not just at peak times.

Although with PTE prices (and TfGM ticketing), the revenue might not be that great for the TOC.

As for the other recent posts in this thread - one minute there won't be enough EMUs spared from Thameslink in time to run the newly electrified Lancashire routes, the next there are suggestions for additional EMU services?

 

[northwichcat]

Although with PTE prices (and TfGM ticketing), the revenue might not be that great for the TOC.

It does depend how many people are both starting and ending their journey in Greater Manchester though. At peak times I imagine it's a high percentage but maybe not so high at off-peak times with more leisure travellers.

 

[WatcherZero]

Can't you?

When I did Chorley to Stockport on a Wednesday early afternoon on a Northern 156 I can tell you there were over 200 passengers on board between Bolton and Manchester. If a 156 with all seats occupied and around 50 standing isn't profitable then what will be?

Bolton-Manchester probably has the highest average loadings for Northern services as unlike some other routes it has high patronage all day not just at peak times.

Working from docs over the years, generally as a rule of thumb if a train is less than four carriages its probably net subsidised, if its four or more then it probably generates enough revenue to pay for itself. The longer the distance the more profitable, inner suburban services rarely generate a profit.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The aspiration seems to be for 4 car units on Cardiff-Portsmouth, which is where cascaded 16xs fit in.

I can't see class 16x units being anything but a retrograde step for Cardiff - Portsmouth, unless there's some suburban route they can be put on to release 158s to strengthen the Cardiff - Portsmouth trains.

I would prefer FGW to do what East Midlands trains have done on the Liverpool - Norwich route and run their class 158's in pairs on the Cardiff - Portsmouth Hbr route providing they can get enough units to do so.

Exactly, 4-car 158 services should be the way forward for that route in my opinion.

Of course the class 165's do have a better door layout which should cut dwell times at stations especially during the peaks which is where the class 158's struggle

I disagree. Cardiff - Portsmouth is not an outer-suburban route, therefore the class 165/166 door layout is NOT better for that service.

However there may well be EMUs running on the Cardiff - Bristol part (so DMUs only required for Bristol - Portsmouth?

My opinion is the Cardiff - Portsmouth service should be retained in full, despite the under-wires running. However, I think Cardiff - Taunton and Worcester - Weymouth services could be rearanged to form Worcester - Taunton and Bristol - Weymouth DMU services and a Swansea/Cardiff - Bristol EMU service.

That said the dual voltage class 319's would be ideal for use on the Cardiff - Portsmouth Hbr route if they could be cleared and the wires put up between Bath & Southampton

Again, I disagree with putting stock with suburban door layouts on the Cardiff - Portsmouth services. That said, they would probably be good for SWT to use to run stopping services from Southampton to Salisbury.

My own idea though is a smaller electrification scheme, just Eastleigh - Romsey, and ordering SWT more 444s for Waterloo - Portsmouth/Weymouth to cascade 450s (one for Romsey - Eastleigh - Southampton, one for Lymingnton and the rest for strengthening elsewhere). If the full route from Cardiff to Portsmouth was electrified then maybe 319s on stoppers yes, but the faster (through) services should use something like a 5-WES or 444.

I think FirstGW have 12 false 3-car 158s. If these were reformed back into 2-car units, I think there'd be 18. That's nine pairs, six 2-car units short of 12 pairs (hence replacing 12 3-car 158s with 12 4-car trains formed of 2 158s). The above suggestion I think would release two 158s from SWT, and you might get a third if you electrify Southampton - Romsey via the other route too, but then the remaining diesel stopper would be Salisbury - Romsey only.

I don't know the exact terms. AFAIK they have to gain clearance first. However, if they are refurbished with 2+2 seating (they will probably be due a mid-life refurbishment) and run in sets of at least 4 car then won't that be an improvement on reformed 3 car 158s?

Why clear a line so that extra-wide (given the length of the coaches) outer-suburban trains, reformed to 4-car (resulting in an increased number of 2-car units without end-corridor-connections), can run a regional express service? 4-car might be better than 3-car, but a 4-car 158 would be prefrable on Cardiff - Portsmouth to a 4-car 166/165 in my opinion.

tbtc is comparing 158s with 2+2 seating with 16xs with 3+2 seating, there is a wider door layout on the 16xs meaning the standing room difference is significantly less than when comparing, for instance, 150s with 3+2 seating with 150s with 2+2 seating.

Again, this is a long-distance regional express route, not an outer-suburban service. Unless I'm mistaken, seated capacity is more important than standing capacity on those services.

 

[northwichcat]

Why clear a line so that extra-wide (given the length of the coaches) outer-suburban trains, reformed to 4-car (resulting in an increased number of 2-car units without end-corridor-connections), can run a regional express service? 4-car might be better than 3-car, but a 4-car 158 would be prefrable on Cardiff - Portsmouth to a 4-car 166/165 in my opinion.

No-one said anything about units being reformed, that's an assumption you've made.

Does the route need to be 4 car throughout or could it work like Liverpool-Norwich?

Again, this is a long-distance regional express route, not an outer-suburban service. Unless I'm mistaken, seated capacity is more important than standing capacity on those services.

So no commuters use the regional service for a short distance?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Working from docs over the years, generally as a rule of thumb if a train is less than four carriages its probably net subsidised, if its four or more then it probably generates enough revenue to pay for itself. The longer the distance the more profitable, inner suburban services rarely generate a profit.

What load capacity and carriage length does the rule of thumb use?

Obviously 2x142s filling in for a 323 is not a most cost-effective alternative.

 

[Rhydgaled]

No-one said anything about units being reformed, that's an assumption you've made.

Somebody mentioned 4-car class 165/166 units I believe. These are definatly supposed to be wider than most other UK trains with 23m coaches, so quite a bit of clearance work is likely to be necessary. To address your point, there are are no 4-car class 165/166s, so you would have to reform them. Running a pair of 2-car units wouldn't work like it could with 158s, since the 16xs don't have corridor connectors on the ends.

Does the route need to be 4 car throughout or could it work like Liverpool-Norwich?

I don't know how Liverpool - Norwich is done, but when I've used the Cardiff-Portsmouth service it was only busy in parts, if at all (though on one occasion it was busy for some distance, Warminster to Bath if I recall correctly). There are probably times when you couldn't drop even the quieter sections from 3-car 158 down to 2-car though, and there aren't 90mph single-car units to boost the busier sections to 4-car. Whatever, if you are going to insist on 16xs, portion working is a no-no in my opinion*

So no commuters use the regional service for a short distance?

Commuters almost certainly do use the service in large numbers, but apart from north of Bristol and Portsmouth there is generally quite a long way between stops (though Bradford-On-Avon - Bath, on the services which stop at the former, is also around 10mins so might be counted as a short-distance, depending on your definition). Why should the short-distance flows at the Portsmouth end, and between Bristol and Filton, mean outer-suburban rolling stock is used for the whole service? If the 172/2 corridor-connectors are compatible with class 158's, you could attach a 172/2 to a 158 I suppose and put long-distance reservations in the 158.

* If you do mean to run units without through corridor connections in multiple, then, in my opinion:

• There should be a catering trolley / buffet car (if the route provides such facilities) in all units
• There should be revenue protection staff in all units
• All units must run the full length of the service
  • This also means no splitting to different destonations
• At least one set of doors of each unit must be able to open for passengers to board and alight at every stop

 

[tbtc]

My opinion is the Cardiff - Portsmouth service should be retained in full, despite the under-wires running

Aren't you one of the biggest critics of IEP (the original subject of this thread) because you don't want the diesel tanks of bi-more units being hauled by EMUs from London to Cardiff?

Surely running DMUs under the wires from Cardiff to Bristol is much more inefficient than having bi-modes running as EMUs under the wires (but with diesel tanks underneath)?

 

[RobShipway]

Aren't you one of the biggest critics of IEP (the original subject of this thread) because you don't want the diesel tanks of bi-more units being hauled by EMUs from London to Cardiff?

Surely running DMUs under the wires from Cardiff to Bristol is much more inefficient than having bi-modes running as EMUs under the wires (but with diesel tanks underneath)?

One thing that everyone is not thinking about is space available at Portsmouth HBR. The reason I say this is that I have often seen that the three car 158 for the Cardiff service has been in the platform when just in front comes either a 377 or 313 that has done the service from Brighton. Where would this train go if you had a 5 car Class 444 stabled in this platform when you have the other platforms in use?

Yes, a four car class 158 I believe would just about fit in on the platform but as tbtc suggests that would be a waste if almost 80% of the line is electrified in either AC or DC. Not sure if it is being looked at but I think a 4 car express version of the IEP hybrid train would be better suited to the line.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Aren't you one of the biggest critics of IEP (the original subject of this thread) because you don't want the diesel tanks of bi-more units being hauled by EMUs from London to Cardiff?

Surely running DMUs under the wires from Cardiff to Bristol is much more inefficient than having bi-modes running as EMUs under the wires (but with diesel tanks underneath)?

Aye, you make a good point. An 8-coach 125mph trains almost certainly uses a heck of a lot more fuel than a 4-car lightweight Sprinter DMU (pair of 158s) though. My general opinion is that an hourly 8-car IC train probably justifies electrification more in terms of emmisions savings than an hourly 3or4-car 158 plus an hourly 150 (please correct me if I'm wrong on that). Also note that, despite my hatred of IEP bi-mode, I have decided (unlike some) to try to avoid it without removing through services to London*, even going as far to say that it might be necessary to have a few 5-car bi-modes (existing class 22xs being very much prefrable to new-builds, since they can be replaced by electrifcation around 12 years earlier than the new IEP stock) for PAD - Cotswolds and PAD - Westbury/Frome semi-fasts ONLY.

Perhaps the biggest reason though is that I think the Portsmouth - south Wales regional express service should (extra 158s permitting) be extended into Pembrokeshire over the Swansea District Line to provide much faster links to Bristol. The amount of non-electrified mileage with infrequent services (while Southampton - Bath might have just enough trains per hour to warrant wires, the Pembrokeshire branches certainly don't) just wouldn't justify electrification. Given those routes probably couldn't be wired before 2050 anyway, (the whole Intercity network** can be I think) a bi-mode 158-like train might not be a bad idea.

The reason for wanting that Pembs - Portsmouth service is I think it a bit silly that Pembrokeshire, at present, has through services to Manchester via a very circuitous route via Swansea and Cardiff, but very few services over the direct route to Cardiff and no through services at all to Bristol. From the Pembroke & Tenby branch, you often would have to change twice (Cardiff and Swansea) to reach Bristol. If you were trying to avoid under-wires mileage and had seperate services, Pembrokeshire - Cardiff via the SDL would be one DMU service, then Cardiff - Bristol on an EMU, then Bristol - Southampton DMU and finally Southampton - Portsmouth EMU. That's a fair few changes of train, add another at Swansea if you're coming from a Pembrokeshire branch that doesn't have the SDL service to Cardiff. Of course if you could make a case to electrify Southampton - Bath, then you could have a Portsmouth - Swansea EMU service with something like class 444s or 5-WESes and have the Pembs - Cardiff via SDL class 158 connect into it at Cardiff. Much more sensible but I'd want to get wires up on IC routes to get Voyagers replaced with electric trains before trying to replace the more-economical 158s on Cardiff - Portsmouth with electric trains.

*My suggestion does include reduction/removal of London - Taunton (and beyond) via Bristol services, but only if IEP coaches remain 26m (they could be dragged from Bristol otherwise) with replacment services via Westbury and additional Bristol - Taunton/Devon/Cornwall XC services introduced to fill the gap.
**Bar handful-of-trains-per-day stuff like Carmarthen, Lincon and Inverness, easily solved with loco-haulage beyond the wires

 

[northwichcat]

Rhydgaled - Some Liverpool to Norwich services work as follows:

4 car 158 leaves Liverpool, on arrival at Nottingham the rear unit is detached and front unit works solo to Norwich. The unit left at Nottingham is then attached to a Norwich-Liverpool service being worked by a single 158 until it reaches Nottingham.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Rhydgaled - Some Liverpool to Norwich services work as follows:

4 car 158 leaves Liverpool, on arrival at Nottingham the rear unit is detached and front unit works solo to Norwich. The unit left at Nottingham is then attached to a Norwich-Liverpool service being worked by a single 158 until it reaches Nottingham.

Thought it might be something like that, thanks for the info. That's what I would do with my proposed extention of Cardiff-Portsmouth to Pembrokeshire, leave one 158 at Cardiff with a single 158 heading west.

 

[TEW]

The current Cardiff-Portsmouth service is least busiest between Southampton and Portsmouth, 2-carriages would be fine on that bit but it's only a small part of the journey and splitting and joining for such a small part of the journey wouldn't be beneficial in my opinion. I do agree 16x units would be a bad move for the route, 158s are much more suitable for the route. I don't think splitting the route at Bristol would be that bad either, a lot of people always seem to get on and off at Cardiff with not that many people continuing. At peak times you do get commuters from Filton Abbey Wood though so perhaps running the trains through to Bristol Parkway would be a good compromise.

 

[RobShipway]

Aye, you make a good point. An 8-coach 125mph trains almost certainly uses a heck of a lot more fuel than a 4-car lightweight Sprinter DMU (pair of 158s) though. My general opinion is that an hourly 8-car IC train probably justifies electrification more in terms of emmisions savings than an hourly 3or4-car 158 plus an hourly 150 (please correct me if I'm wrong on that). Also note that, despite my hatred of IEP bi-mode, I have decided (unlike some) to try to avoid it without removing through services to London*, even going as far to say that it might be necessary to have a few 5-car bi-modes (existing class 22xs being very much prefrable to new-builds, since they can be replaced by electrifcation around 12 years earlier than the new IEP stock) for PAD - Cotswolds and PAD - Westbury/Frome semi-fasts ONLY.

Perhaps the biggest reason though is that I think the Portsmouth - south Wales regional express service should (extra 158s permitting) be extended into Pembrokeshire over the Swansea District Line to provide much faster links to Bristol. The amount of non-electrified mileage with infrequent services (while Southampton - Bath might have just enough trains per hour to warrant wires, the Pembrokeshire branches certainly don't) just wouldn't justify electrification. Given those routes probably couldn't be wired before 2050 anyway, (the whole Intercity network** can be I think) a bi-mode 158-like train might not be a bad idea.

The reason for wanting that Pembs - Portsmouth service is I think it a bit silly that Pembrokeshire, at present, has through services to Manchester via a very circuitous route via Swansea and Cardiff, but very few services over the direct route to Cardiff and no through services at all to Bristol. From the Pembroke & Tenby branch, you often would have to change twice (Cardiff and Swansea) to reach Bristol. If you were trying to avoid under-wires mileage and had seperate services, Pembrokeshire - Cardiff via the SDL would be one DMU service, then Cardiff - Bristol on an EMU, then Bristol - Southampton DMU and finally Southampton - Portsmouth EMU. That's a fair few changes of train, add another at Swansea if you're coming from a Pembrokeshire branch that doesn't have the SDL service to Cardiff. Of course if you could make a case to electrify Southampton - Bath, then you could have a Portsmouth - Swansea EMU service with something like class 444s or 5-WESes and have the Pembs - Cardiff via SDL class 158 connect into it at Cardiff. Much more sensible but I'd want to get wires up on IC routes to get Voyagers replaced with electric trains before trying to replace the more-economical 158s on Cardiff - Portsmouth with electric trains.

*My suggestion does include reduction/removal of London - Taunton (and beyond) via Bristol services, but only if IEP coaches remain 26m (they could be dragged from Bristol otherwise) with replacment services via Westbury and additional Bristol - Taunton/Devon/Cornwall XC services introduced to fill the gap.
**Bar handful-of-trains-per-day stuff like Carmarthen, Lincon and Inverness, easily solved with loco-haulage beyond the wires

Before you get too much more wild fancies, please read my post above as you have obviously not visited Portsmouth Harbour station when the trains have been coming and going. You need to be more realistic than saying about using 5 car Class 444 trains. there is not the space in the platform as per my post above and there is no further room to extend the platforms before you mention that point. If you have Class 444 trains, then they will have to terminate at Portsmouth & Southsea such that anyone wanting Portsmouth Harbour would have to change trains.

 

[tbtc]

One thing that everyone is not thinking about is space available at Portsmouth HBR. The reason I say this is that I have often seen that the three car 158 for the Cardiff service has been in the platform when just in front comes either a 377 or 313 that has done the service from Brighton. Where would this train go if you had a 5 car Class 444 stabled in this platform when you have the other platforms in use?

Yes, a four car class 158 I believe would just about fit in on the platform but as tbtc suggests that would be a waste if almost 80% of the line is electrified in either AC or DC. Not sure if it is being looked at but I think a 4 car express version of the IEP hybrid train would be better suited to the line.

THat's a good point - longer services at Portsmouth Harbour are going to be competing for platform space with the London/ Brighton services.

Aye, you make a good point. An 8-coach 125mph trains almost certainly uses a heck of a lot more fuel than a 4-car lightweight Sprinter DMU (pair of 158s) though

Since we can't electrify every branch off the GWML (Pembroke etc), if you don't want bi mode IEP then you have to either faff about with 67s or have diesels run all the way to London under the wires (or cut direct services).

Running as an EMU under the wires, and only on diesel power in unelectrified areas (as a bi-mode would) seems to be a sensible compromise.

Running diesels on electrified line from Portsmouth to Southampton then on unelectrified lines from Southampton to Bath then on electrified lines from Bath to Cardiff... that's a waste of resources.

Replace the Cardiff - Bristol part with four coach EMUs and you then have sufficient DMUs to extend other services in unelectrified areas (maybe additional Bristol - Southampton services by extending some Salisbury Six services)...

 

[anthony263]

THat's a good point - longer services at Portsmouth Harbour are going to be competing for platform space with the London/ Brighton services.



Since we can't electrify every branch off the GWML (Pembroke etc), if you don't want bi mode IEP then you have to either faff about with 67s or have diesels run all the way to London under the wires (or cut direct services).

Running as an EMU under the wires, and only on diesel power in unelectrified areas (as a bi-mode would) seems to be a sensible compromise.

Running diesels on electrified line from Portsmouth to Southampton then on unelectrified lines from Southampton to Bath then on electrified lines from Bath to Cardiff... that's a waste of resources.

Replace the Cardiff - Bristol part with four coach EMUs and you then have sufficient DMUs to extend other services in unelectrified areas (maybe additional Bristol - Southampton services by extending some Salisbury Six services)...

The Salisbury 6 services should be extended to Westbury & Swindon rather than Bristol in my opinion.

Of course you could have a regular Hourly service between Bristol & Frome/Yeovil Pen mill with one train every 2 hours continuing to Weymouth.

 

[tbtc]

The Salisbury 6 services should be extended to Westbury & Swindon rather than Bristol in my opinion.

Of course you could have a regular Hourly service between Bristol & Frome/Yeovil Pen mill with one train every 2 hours continuing to Weymouth.

I was thinking that you could have a half hourly Bristol - Southampton service:

• Bristol -Bath - Salisbury - Romsey - Southampton - Portsmouth
• Bristol -Bath - Salisbury - Romsey - Southampton - Eastleigh - Romsey

...that way you hopefully take some of the pressure off the current service (without needing longer trains at Portsmouth).

Regular EMU connections available at Bristol for Cardiff etc.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Since we can't electrify every branch off the GWML (Pembroke etc), if you don't want bi mode IEP then you have to either faff about with 67s or have diesels run all the way to London under the wires (or cut direct services).

Running as an EMU under the wires, and only on diesel power in unelectrified areas (as a bi-mode would) seems to be a sensible compromise.

A bi-mode would seem sensible if you cannot electrify enough routes to easily avoid it, hence my suggestion that a class 158 bi-mode might be a good idea. However, Intercity bi-modes are much easier to avoid, since alot of the sections which aren't viable candidates for electrification are very infrequent. For example, west of Swansea and the ECML off-wire extensions see no more than 3 London trains per day, you wouldn't need many locos to allow alot of the proposed bi-mode IEPs to be EMUs instead. The result is quite a large reduction in the total number of diesel powerplants required over the bi-mode option. In contrast, an hourly Carmarthen - Portsmouth service with alternate hours extensions into PEMBS would require a heck of a lot more locos.

Running diesels on electrified line from Portsmouth to Southampton then on unelectrified lines from Southampton to Bath then on electrified lines from Bath to Cardiff... that's a waste of resources.

I was thinking that you could have a half hourly Bristol - Southampton service:

• Bristol -Bath - Salisbury - Romsey - Southampton - Portsmouth
• Bristol -Bath - Salisbury - Romsey - Southampton - Eastleigh - Romsey

...that way you hopefully take some of the pressure off the current service (without needing longer trains at Portsmouth).

Regular EMU connections available at Bristol for Cardiff etc.

So you'd keep the trains running over the 3rd rail to Portsmouth then? Why not terminate the diesels at Southampton if you are so keen on avoiding diesels on electrified lines?

As much as Cardiff - Portsmouth on diesel looks like a waste of resources as it is, looking at a PEMBS - Portsmouth service instead, as I am, makes the electric mileage seem less significant.

Splitting Cardiff - Portsmouth at Bristol might not be so bad if services from S.W. Wales ran through to Bristol, but wires west of Swansea are a no-no so both sides of Bristol would have to be DMU (or a bi-mode based on a 158) anyway.

 

[tbtc]

So you'd keep the trains running over the 3rd rail to Portsmouth then? Why not terminate the diesels at Southampton if you are so keen on avoiding diesels on electrified lines?

Fair point.

Partly because the electrification at Southampton isn't a "new" thing and there appears to be a very established through flow between Bristol and Portsmouth.

Based on my experience, there aren't many on the current service between stations in Wales and stations beyond Bath (in the way that Liverpool - Norwich is really a combination of lots of local links, rather than to meet any genuine demand from one side of the country to the other).

However for *new* electrification schemes, part of the justification is that they are there to reduce the number of diesel services running on those lines. Wiring up a line and then continuing to run DMUs weakens the business case. Wiring up a line and then introducing new DMU services (as some posters have suggested - e.g. the Windermere thread has a suggestion about electrifying that line and then introducing "heritage" DMU shuttles) defeats the purpose.

 

[anthony263]

Perhaps it may be a good idea to split the Portsmouth Hbr - Cardiff service at Bristol with perhaps the following:

1.) Swansea - Cardiff - Bristol TM (Possible extension to Bath if there is enough paths available and trains can be reversed and the wires are erected to Swansea.)

This would take the place of the current Swansea - Cardiff swanline service and reduce journey times on the swanline service from 65 minutes to 60 minutes although trains could call at Pencoed & Pontyclun and do Swansea - Cardiff in 63 minutes and allow Pencoed & Pontyclun to get a half hourly service.

This should help with overcrowding on the route during the peaks you only have to look at the 17:20 Cardiff - Maesteg service to see how bad it gets and I am sure passengers would welcome something like a 4 carriage class 319

2.) Portsmouth Hbr - Bristol (Possibly run to Portishead if that line is re-opened? or even to Weston Super Mare or Severn Beach/Henbury)

3.) Romsey - Southampton - Salisbury - Westbury - Swindon

 

[Drsatan]

Perhaps it may be a good idea to split the Portsmouth Hbr - Cardiff service at Bristol with perhaps the following:

1.) Swansea - Cardiff - Bristol TM (Possible extension to Bath if there is enough paths available and trains can be reversed and the wires are erected to Swansea.)

This would take the place of the current Swansea - Cardiff swanline service and reduce journey times on the swanline service from 65 minutes to 60 minutes although trains could call at Pencoed & Pontyclun and do Swansea - Cardiff in 63 minutes and allow Pencoed & Pontyclun to get a half hourly service.

This should help with overcrowding on the route during the peaks you only have to look at the 17:20 Cardiff - Maesteg service to see how bad it gets and I am sure passengers would welcome something like a 4 carriage class 319

2.) Portsmouth Hbr - Bristol (Possibly run to Portishead if that line is re-opened? or even to Weston Super Mare or Severn Beach/Henbury)

3.) Romsey - Southampton - Salisbury - Westbury - Swindon

If Portsmouth Harbour - Cardiff services only run as far as Bristol TM, platform space might become an issue if Bristol TM receives far more terminating trains. However, if the original trainshed there will be reopened for IEP trains, then there will be more free platforms.

Additionally, if passengers travelling to Cardiff have to change at Bristol TM, then the current Cardiff - Taunton service will become much busier between Cardiff and Bristol. I'd suggest running an hourly (preferably half-hourly) all-stations service between Cardiff and Westbury, or from Westbury to Portishead if that line is ever re-opened.

Until additional DMUs can be found, I'd suggest that all Brighton services be axed so that more Cardiff - Portsmouth services can be lengthened to five cars (1 3 car 158 and one 2 car 158 or 150).

 

[RobShipway]

If Portsmouth Harbour - Cardiff services only run as far as Bristol TM, platform space might become an issue if Bristol TM receives far more terminating trains. However, if the original trainshed there will be reopened for IEP trains, then there will be more free platforms.

Additionally, if passengers travelling to Cardiff have to change at Bristol TM, then the current Cardiff - Taunton service will become much busier between Cardiff and Bristol. I'd suggest running an hourly (preferably half-hourly) all-stations service between Cardiff and Westbury, or from Westbury to Portishead if that line is ever re-opened.

Until additional DMUs can be found, I'd suggest that all Brighton services be axed so that more Cardiff - Portsmouth services can be lengthened to five cars (1 3 car 158 and one 2 car 158 or 150).

Why axe the Brighton services? They have all ready suffered the axing of the Brighton - Reading via Fareham/Baskingstoke service so that more Brighton - Cardiff services can be run. Not sure if the IEP trains can be Tri mode but if they can then for me that answers the question, as you would have ac power from the pantograph, diesel power from the engines underneath and 3rd rail shoes fitted so that they can draw power on the third rail network.

Alternatively, you have the train pulled by Class 73 if there is enough available between Bath - Portsmouth and Bath - Brighton or a more modern powerful version of the class 73 like the Vossloh Eurolight.

 

[anthony263]

read on WNXX that seimens were supposed to be unveiling the prototype Desiro city unit later this week in Viena

 

[sprinterguy]

Alternatively, you have the train pulled by Class 73 if there is enough available between Bath - Portsmouth and Bath - Brighton or a more modern powerful version of the class 73 like the Vossloh Eurolight.

That's the first I've heard that the Vossloh Eurolights, a hefty type 5 diesel loco design, were capable of being fitted with third rail shoes and had the interior space for the electric traction equipment needed to operate off third rail electric power.

There is work being done right now on creating a more powerful class 73 for Network Rail I believe, that will have about 1400 - 1500hp when running on diesel power, meaning that it will have a comparable power output while running on either diesel or electric.

The Great Western franchise consultation asks the shortlisted bidders to consider whether the Brighton services are appropriate for inclusion in the Great Western franchise, or to quantify where the rolling stock used on this service could be better utilised elsewhere in the franchise.

 

[Class377/5]

read on WNXX that seimens were supposed to be unveiling the prototype Desiro city unit later this week in Viena

If they it will show how much Siemens is putting into the Desiro City project with a unit in testing prior to contracts being signed.

 

[anthony263]

If they it will show how much Siemens is putting into the Desiro City project with a unit in testing prior to contracts being signed.

I am certainly looking forward to seing what Seimens have up their sleeve. Too be honest could you see Bombardier doing this if the contract wasn't signed.

Also I believe a certain member of this forum and wnxx is going to the event

 

[Class377/5]

I am certainly looking forward to seing what Seimens have up their sleeve. Too be honest could you see Bombardier doing this if the contract wasn't signed.

Also I believe a certain member of this forum and wnxx is going to the event

Is that couldn't rather than could?

As someone who is likely to be dealing with these units daily within a couple of years, I'm looking forward to seeing them proper.

I believe he is going. Looking forward to his pics too.

 

[Skimble19]

Aha, no doubt they'll be on the front of a certain magazine if it's who I'm thinking of. I just hope the body is laid out more like a 365 than a 317; with many smaller windows as opposed to two slightly larger windows and a ton of wall.

 

[John55]

I am certainly looking forward to seing what Seimens have up their sleeve. Too be honest could you see Bombardier doing this if the contract wasn't signed.

Also I believe a certain member of this forum and wnxx is going to the event

I presume you don't realise that the development of the bogie for the Desiro City is Siemens playing catch up with Bombardier who have had a design for an inside framed bogie for years and are actually supplying a version of it to Siemens to fit to the latest version of the ICE.

 

[jopsuk]

Aha, no doubt they'll be on the front of a certain magazine if it's who I'm thinking of. I just hope the body is laid out more like a 365 than a 317; with many smaller windows as opposed to two slightly larger windows and a ton of wall.

Much of the "wall" in the 317s is down the sliding door pockets- though various LU stock cheerfully has windows here- though the older "pocket" stock tends to have absolutely flithy woindows, due to the problems of cleaning easily inside the "pocket".

 

[sprinterguy]

Aha, no doubt they'll be on the front of a certain magazine if it's who I'm thinking of. I just hope the body is laid out more like a 365 than a 317; with many smaller windows as opposed to two slightly larger windows and a ton of wall.

If the real thing is the same as the mock-ups and models that have been produced, then I am afraid you are out of luck: The middle section of the bodyside, between the two sets of doors, will only feature two windows, with blank bodyside left around the entrances in order to accomodate the sliding pocket doors as jopsuk describes.