Latest on IEP/GWML

[Zoe]

I think the current lot are going much further then tories of the past in quite a few areas. At least under Thatcher the ECML, Cambridge, Kings Lynn, Skipton all were wired

And we are still paying the price for what Major's government did.

 

[starrymarkb]

Latest is now that the MOD are involved in a trains for Eurofighters deal with the Japanese...

The DfT are determined to go for the expensive Bi-Mode in order to save a bit on wiring... Alstom (who are doing the knitting surveys) reckon the Severn Tunnel is easier then the Bakerloo line for electrifying too

I have it from a 100% reliable source within the DfT, backed up by
another source within FGW that as far as the IEP proposal is
concerned, it will be an entirely bi-mode fleet if the IEP
"champion" (SB) of the DfT wins the argument when it comes to the
Minister of State. Senior staff from TOCs are being ordered by the DfT
to attend numerous "morning briefings" as the DfT hammer out the
details, and there is a lot of anger at the refusal of the DfT to even
seriously consider the opinions of experienced railway engineers who
see the Bi-Mode IEP as a hugely wasteful train that will be very
expensive over 40 years. The money spent on this, and the possible
refurbishment of a very tired HST fleet could pay for many more miles
of electrification. At the risk of repeating myself, I spoke to a
member of the electrification survey team when they were working on St
Philips Marsh Depot in 2009. I asked him how problematical the Severn
Tunnel would be to electrify and he was adamant it was not technically
difficult. (It compares favourably with the Bakerloo Line under the
Thames according to him)
IEP has become an egotistical political train, rather than a properly
researched and engineered new generation train to replace worn out
1970s stock. The promise of a "factory" scores political points, even
if it is just a kit assembly plant which will no doubt close when the
grant aid stops at the end of the IEP build. How can the Japanese
expect to win orders within the EU if no EU country can build trains
for Japan?
One option being spoken about openly now, is the linking of the IEP
with Japan taking on a few squadrons worth of Eurofighter Typhoons for
it's FX project, currently on order for the RAF, but considered
surplus and a gift for a Govt. looking for cuts. A Planes for Trains
swap. This aircraft was evaluated by the JSDF in 2008, and the
favoured aircraft, the US built F35 is running late.
As it stands, it looks as if we will be lumbered with a train roughly
60 tonnes heavier than it should be (nearly the weight of two HST
carriages) with a slimmed down body profile to allow for the overhang
at the ends of it's 26m coaches. The servicing costs will be much
higher and the downtime longer than it would be with an all electric
design. Cost saving? Bollocks!

 

[Rhydgaled]

DAfT exactly. In my opinion the line should be electrified to Swansea. The one thing I agree with is keeping INTERCITY 125s on the Taunton, Devon and Cornwall workings. Due to this, I wonder why you would want to electrify between Reading and Newbury. I'd do one of the following with rolling stock:

1. • Order additional Hitachi 395s (since they were identified as the prefered bidder, it's probablly only fair we buy somthing from them). These would probablly have the coaches lengthened to the 23 metres of our current mrk3s. They would also be ERTMS fitted. These would, prefrably, be built in the UK (or at a factory in Europe, allowing the stock to arrive in the UK by rail, if they have one but not in the UK). These would be for use on Paddington - Oxford (and similar services out of Paddington)
   • Order a sub-class of the above for the East Coast Main Line and Paddington - Bristol Temple Meads services. These would differ from the above in having an express-train door layout (sliding plugs at the ends of coaches, leading into vestibles) and probablly more cars per set.
   • Fit ERTMS to INTERCITY 225s and put them to work on Swansea - Paddington.
   • Build new TDM and ERTMS fitted diesel locos or fit existing diesel locos. Use these to drag the new 395s to off-wire destonations. These would also be used replace the class 91s on the INTERCITY 225s to allow them to reach off-wire destonations (primarily Carmarthen and Pembroke Dock, just because the wires won't go beyond Swansea it doesn't mean that the trains have to be bi-mode to do so).
2. My prefered option, as (1.) but:
   • Oxford 395s built to same spec as those on HS1 (lengthening coaches probablly not worthwhile because of the next point)
   • Express door variant of the Hitachi EMUs replaced with new-build LHCS similar to INTERCITY 225s but with passenger seating in the DVTs. As with the actual INTERCITY 225s the diesels would replace the loco rather than drag the whole train.

This fleet of new and cascaded electric stock would all be capable of 140mph if the ERTMS roll-out gets back on track.

 

[Zoe]

Due to this, I wonder why you would want to electrify between Reading and Newbury.

This is so Paddington/Reading to Newbury services can be worked by EMUs.

 

[Rhydgaled]

This is so Paddington/Reading to Newbury services can be worked by EMUs.

Forgive me, I know next to nothing of services in that area. Are there any services from Reading (or anywhere between Reading and Paddington, including PAD itself) that terminate at Newbury? If so, what stock is used at present? Maybe the Oxford 395s in my suggestion could also work this route?

 

[Zoe]

Forgive me, I know next to nothing of services in that area. Are there any services from Reading (or anywhere between Reading and Paddington, including PAD itself) that terminate at Newbury? If so, what stock is used at present? Maybe the Oxford 395s in my suggestion could also work this route?

There is a half hourly shuttle from Reading to Newbury. There is currently also a Paddingon to Bedwyn service although in theory this could be cut back to Newbury with a DMU shuttle running from Newbury to Bedwyn. As for the 319s, do you really need 140 mph trains for a commuter serivce that won't run at that speed.

 

[TheWalrus]

There is a half hourly shuttle from Reading to Newbury. There is currently also a Paddingon to Bedwyn service although in theory this could be cut back to Newbury with a DMU shuttle running from Newbury to Bedwyn. As for the 319s, do you really need 140 mph trains for a commuter serivce that won't run at that speed.

140mph for the B&H semis? it would be good for 2 reasons: it would make the units more compatible with other high speed units between Reading-Paddington; it would provide a faster service to these stations, therefore more pax. Especially as when they get further down the line the IC will start to catch it up.

There's your case for

Can't see a Newbury-Bedwyn shuttle happening or working!

 

[swt_passenger]

Can't see a Newbury-Bedwyn shuttle happening or working!

They won't need a Newbury - Bedwyn shuttle because stops beyond Newbury will be taken over by the second B&H bimode IEP service running as a semifast stopper to Taunton via Westbury. It is described in the GWML RUS, as I posted a few weeks back.

 

[Zoe]

Can't see a Newbury-Bedwyn shuttle happening or working!

There was one in the December 2004 timetable.

 

[TheWalrus]

They won't need a Newbury - Bedwyn shuttle because stops beyond Newbury will be taken over by the second B&H bimode IEP service running as a semifast stopper to Taunton via Westbury. It is described in the GWML RUS, as I posted a few weeks back.

Yes it is, the RUS said Exeter I recall. A bi-mode seems most sensible.

 

[tbtc]

140mph for the B&H semis? it would be good for 2 reasons

Semi? As in "semi fast"? 140mph is only "semi fast"?

 

[Zoe]

Semi? As in "semi fast"? 140mph is only "semi fast"?

140 mph is out of the question on the Berks and Hants, the trains would only run at that speed from Paddington to Reading.

 

[TheWalrus]

140 mph is out of the question on the Berks and Hants, the trains would only run at that speed from Paddington to Reading.

Oh yeah by a long stretch!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Since you have informed me the Newbury electric trains would just be shuttles to/from Reading then yes, you don't need 140mph stock to run them. The basic 395s (the ones with 1/3 and 2/3 doors like the HS1 fleet) I suggested above would be for Paddington services based on an assumption that having more trains able to run at the same speed as the Intercitys would help capacity.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Since you have informed me the Newbury electric trains would just be shuttles to/from Reading then yes, you don't need 140mph stock to run them. The basic 395s (the ones with 1/3 and 2/3 doors like the HS1 fleet) I suggested above would be for Paddington services based on an assumption that having more trains able to run at the same speed as the Intercitys would help capacity.

The same max speed argument is pants, different stopping patterns, acceleration/deceleration from stops all mean that there will always be conflicts as one service will be slower. One of the Dafter ideas was that 26m length IEP carriages with end doors could do commuter trains- the station dwell times will go through the roof.

 

[TheWalrus]

TBH I would rather see Newbury shelved and the Severn Tunnel done.

 

[tbtc]

One of the Dafter ideas

Sadly, when it comes to IEP, there's a long list of daft ideas, it gets hard to work out the daftest

 

[jopsuk]

One of the Dafter ideas was that 26m length IEP carriages with end doors could do commuter trains- the station dwell times will go through the roof.

Using them for just fast Cambridge (and on to Kings Lynn) services, and fast Peterborough services, wouldn't be that daft- north of Cambridge dwell times aren't really a problem, and we're talking trains that are non-stop the rest of the journey.

Well, they would be not daft on that basis. However, it would mean having a small fleet only suitable for those services, whereas at the moment the Networkers can operate all services, with 317s and 321s only needed as there aren't enough 365s.

 

[route:oxford]

TBH I would rather see Newbury shelved and the Severn Tunnel done.

I'd rather see Newbury being dropped and Oxford-Birmingham connected by the wires.

This would allow Reading-Manchester services to be operated by the same 125mph stock as is planned for Scotrail thus releasing Voyagers.

Perhaps also allow Virgin (or their succesor) to operate direct services between Heathrow & Birmingham Edinburgh/Glasgow.

 

[swt_passenger]

Since you have informed me the Newbury electric trains would just be shuttles to/from Reading then yes, you don't need 140mph stock to run them. The basic 395s (the ones with 1/3 and 2/3 doors like the HS1 fleet) I suggested above would be for Paddington services based on an assumption that having more trains able to run at the same speed as the Intercitys would help capacity.

No, I think all that was pointed out is that there is currently a Reading - Newbury DMU shuttle, that provides the local stopping service. The current layout at Reading wouldn't allow this to run through Reading, as there isn't the capacity for a cross Reading stopping service to cross the fast lines.

But all this will be completely different following the station rebuild and electrification, because there will be non -conflicting routes from the relief lines to the B&H route, so an EMU service from Paddington to Newbury wouldn't be a problem at all - it could run semifast to Reading then all stations to Newbury.

It is easy to get sidetracked by trying to visualise the current service patterns under electrifcation, but the whole point of the station rebuild is to allow different services to operate - which explains why there are far more through platforms and less bays.

 

[tbtc]

I'd rather see Newbury being dropped and Oxford-Birmingham connected by the wires.

This would allow Reading-Manchester services to be operated by the same 125mph stock as is planned for Scotrail thus releasing Voyagers.

Perhaps also allow Virgin (or their succesor) to operate direct services between Heathrow & Birmingham Edinburgh/Glasgow.

Agreed; the Basingstoke line should be done as a bigger priority before Newbury is considered too

 

[Zoe]

The same max speed argument is pants, different stopping patterns, acceleration/deceleration from stops all mean that there will always be conflicts as one service will be slower. One of the Dafter ideas was that 26m length IEP carriages with end doors could do commuter trains- the station dwell times will go through the roof.

HSTs are currently used on some commuter trains out of Paddington.

 

[Chafford1]

JP on uk.railway ....... the train is a ridiculously
over complex, overweight and overly expensive design. The selection
process was changed following the selection of Hitachi as preferred
bidder to suit, Hitachi. No such luxury for the other bidders. What is
being foisted on the industry will have whole life costs that are far
higher than than the alternatives. A hybrid electric emu / dmu
employing underfloor engines, and a power to weight ratio meaning it
will be slower on many lines than HST is now.
Hitachi make much of their reliability using the 395s as an example.
Given the small number of daily diagrams compared to the size of the
fleet, it's no surprise they are working well. But of course they are
just EMus, not EDMus.

Decision/announcement 2 - 3 weeks according to JP.

 

[TheWalrus]

Lets be honest, who knows what will happen with the b&h?

 

[Zoe]

Lets be honest, who knows what will happen with the b&h?

Indeed, it's not even certain it will be the route of choice for West of England services in the long term.

 

[Rhydgaled]

So why are the dft looking to sideline Wales? Is it to do with the number of services on the route that would be able to convert to electric traction?

If so, would making Mr WAG-AIR (the deputy first minster at WAG) scrap a road scheme from his national transport plan to pay for wiring of Maesteg, Ebbw Vale and Severn Tunnel Junction - Cheltenham Spa and class 377 trains to operate hourly Swansea - Cheltenham, Ebbw Vale - Newport and Ebbw Vale - Maesteg change things? Also, would rescuring the electrification to Swansea also save the railways from the disaster of bi-mode?

 

[Greenback]

So why are the dft looking to sideline Wales? Is it to do with the number of services on the route that would be able to convert to electric traction?

If so, would making Mr WAG-AIR (the deputy first minster at WAG) scrap a road scheme from his national transport plan to pay for wiring of Maesteg, Ebbw Vale and Severn Tunnel Junction - Cheltenham Spa and class 377 trains to operate hourly Swansea - Cheltenham, Ebbw Vale - Newport and Ebbw Vale - Maesteg change things? Also, would rescuring the electrification to Swansea also save the railways from the disaster of bi-mode?

Maybe the London government thinks that devolution means that Wales should become more self sufficient? There is an argument that syas, well the Welsh wanted a national assembly, let them pay for electrification out of their own budget.

As for improvements in the South, would that be politically acceptable to Plaid Cymru?

 

[krus_aragon]

As for improvements in the South, would that be politically acceptable to Plaid Cymru?

With an hourly Cambrian Mainline service, Wrexham-Chester redoubled, a continued Gerallt Gymro service and the possibility of Llangefni-Llandudno services, I should hope they'd find it.politically acceptable.

 

[Ivo]

First off, I have to agree with the criticisms of wiring up to Newbury. The line is like a poor relation to the main route, and with no major locations served before the wires would cease (Newbury and Thatcham don't exactly compare with, say, Super Mud do they?). I think it would be better to concentrate on the GWML and sod Newbury. I would propose routes to Oxford, Bristol and Swansea, as initially suggested however long ago it was now, but also wire through Filton AW (if it isn't already planned) and also continue through to WSM to allow for a permanent hourly service from Paddington.

As for Cardiff, wasn't there an idea in one of the RUS documents to electrify the Valley Lines? If the WAG would pay at least some of that, surely there would be no case to no continue through the Tunnel?

 

[Solaris]

As for Cardiff, wasn't there an idea in one of the RUS documents to electrify the Valley Lines? If the WAG would pay at least some of that, surely there would be no case to no continue through the Tunnel?

If powers and funding for rail infrastructre are devolved from the DfT to WAG in Cardiff then yes they could pay. But they are not currently devolved, so I am not sure WAG should pay itself for non-devolved matters. That would mean welsh tax payers paying twice as the block grant it currently receives is for devolved matters like health, education, roads, etc.

When powers/funding for rail infrastructure were devolved to Scotland in 2006 that resulted in a £380M increase in Scotland's block grant from Westminster. Pro rata Wales would be looking at £230M pa.