Post HST Mark 3s

[Nym]

Yes, but if the 222 fleet becomes available and the HSTs can be life extended to 2030, there is no need for any Bi Mode stock to be ordered.

The 222 fleet in it's whole could cover all the CURRENT diagrams on everything beyond Swansea, Bristol, Oxford and Newbury. Worked this out at great length before.

The only principal home for Bi Mode then is the top of Scotland EC services, but safe money is on Transport Scotland wiring to Aberdeen in the next 10 years anyway.

The next steps on the GW would be where there is the most demand and the most pure EMUs could benifit, such as Cheltenham via Kemble.

But...

If one can release more 22x units from other routes by other electrification, this should be done first.

eg.

Bristol - Birmingham or Oxford - Birmingham takes some 10 diagrams off the XC Network, these units freed up can then (and proberbly will be EDMUs anyway) go to cover any additional needs on the GW Routes, allowing HST retirement.

Adding Reading - Basingstoke & Birmingham - Derby and getting dual voltage 125/140mph EMUs ordered up would get rid of even more need for EDMU/DMUs on the XC Network. With only EDB - South West left with EDMU operation.

Most of these schemes could be completed in isolation and would provide great benifits outside of the XC Network too, and would be a better EDMU Release for your pound than the rest of the GW IMO (Initally anyway).

Similar with Crewe - Chester, not very much mileage but it releases a significant amount of what could be EDMUs for the off wires on the GW. As would simply ordering more 390s for Birmingham - Scotland.

The main problem I can see with ordering more Bi Mode stock is that it will result in one of two things...

A pile of useless bi mode stock, that means we'll end up with IEPs running reigonal routes when most LDPE routes are electrified in hopfully 20 years.

Or Electrification will stagnate again because it would 'make these new trains useless' and we'll be in the same situation again, panicking in another 30 years when we need more diesels and oh no, there isn't such a thing as diesel any more!

We don't know how much of the stuff is left, we should be minimising the stock that relies on it, and IMO, no more LDPE Diesel Stock (Be it bi mode or diesel only) need be ordered, ever....

Inter-reigonal if we have a medium paced electrification scheme,

MML, Cardiff Valeys, Swansea, Crewe - Chester and TPE North by 2025-8, similar pace continuing, then another 100 2 and 3 car units is all we'll ever need. Theres a big BUT on here though... These units should be DESIGNED with egines that will run on bio-fuels and I don't mean engineered ones, I mean fuels like Straight Vegetable Oil, (Ie... starting tank for diesel or engineered biodiesel, and running around on vapourised chip oil, new or used.) That way they'll be near carbon neutral anyway, and not rely on continuous supplies of Diesel.

If four car units can be justified, then it may be worth looking into EDMU Reigonal Units, such as a 4 car 350 with three generators and a transformer / pantograph / 3rd rail pickup on board. But anything less than four car and the power to weight ratios just don't work out well.

 

[WillPS]

DMUs from the following flows:

Doncaster - Sheffeild via Meadowhall
Leeds - Sheffeild - Nottingham via Wakefeild
Nottingham - Derby

By my count thats about 12 DMUs

Northern's Leeds - Nottingham service goes via Kirkgate so possibly wouldn't be converted as part of the MML.

There is no Nottingham - Derby DMU. Nottingham - Birmingham/Cardiff and Nottingham - Matlock.

Matlock electrification is possible but unlikely again. Wires through Burton and to Cardiff are even more unlikely.

Frankly, this is total pie in the sky stuff. If wires reach Sheffield at all I expect them to come down from Doncaster, not up from the Midland Mainline - there's just too many associated problems.

The chance of mass electrification at all I'd have said have improved recently, but still I doubt it'll come anywhere close to the levels needed to send off Pacers by 2020 - and this is before we start addressing the dire need for capacity on DMU routes!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Down with the Bi-mode IEP!

My feelings exactly.

If you wire to Swansea, Cheltenham etc it would kill off the Bi-mode, i know there are those who are against changing locomotives etc, well say instead of changing the loco at Oxford, couldnt the wires be extended to somewhere such as moreton in marsh or something,

I have three words for the Cotswolds line: BI MODE VOYAGERS! Seriously, if all Voyagers are extended (1 panto car for 220s and 2 for 221s) and you could release enough, now 5-car, 220s from XC to run it I think, with 10-car between Oxford and PAD. To free the 220s, XC could be given either IC125s displaced by IEP or (if you can find the money for wires to Chester and 20-odd extra Pendolions) the 221s from ICWC. That way both XC and the Cotswolds line get longer trains (unless the Cotswolds services are currently run by 2x 3-car 165/166, which to my knowlage they aren't).

actually, with comited projects in e&w we're still 100 dmu short of killing pacers. Gw covers internals and atw. Nor tri bearly covers capacity increses and extra diagrams from the northern hub.

As far as I know the LM cascades will reduce FGW's pacer allocation to 8 143s. ValleyLines electrification should take care of them as well as all ATW's pacers, leaving all released 165/166 units to contribute to cutting down Northern's Pacer fleet.

How many Sprinters will LM have left when the 172s are all online? Is their option of additional 172s enough to eliminate the Sprinters entirely? If so, hopefully that's all the diesel stock that's needed to replace Pacers. Wiki says LM's 170s are used on the following routes:

• Hereford - Birmingham
• Birmingham - Shrewsbury
• Birmingham to Rugeley Trent Valley

So if you electrify those routes with 30 odd new EMUs you reduce LM to one class of DMU (if you ignore the Parry People Movers). The 170s could go to Northern to shift some more Pacers and Wales would keep the 158s released from Birmingham - Shrewsbury.

Well, a decision needs to be made soon about electrification, we're fast approaching the cut off point for this.

I think we already have, unfortunatly. I hope I am wrong though and IEP bi-mode is binned.

It is possible (if you throw enough money at it) to electrify enough routes to kill off pacers completely by 2019, and continuing to kill off the HST by 2030, but it needs to be done rather quickly, and in areas where it will have some political benifit too.

Not just IC125s, but nearly all diesel LDPE stock by 2035 and the remainder (222s) by 2045. Build anything new with diesel engines, and their 30-year life will take you beyond the 2050 GHG reduction targets (I think we have a legal target in the Climate Change Act, it is not just an EU target). An Intercity 125 in 2030 will be getting on for 60, so I'd expect you'd be able to life-extend IC225s to 2045 as well.

The messy nature of Great Western London services means that bi-mode will be useful.

Whilst the "core" is London - Bristol/ Cardiff/ Oxford (all being electrified), and you want to extend beyond to Swansea and Cheltenham, the wires would take even longer to reach these places.

Plus, if Swansea and Cheltenham are wired, you'd still need to do something about direct London trains for Worcester/ Hereford/ Weston/ Devon/ Cornwall/ Fishguard...

Fishguard? direct trains from London? The line's only just been (affectivly) re-opened! I've already said I think the only way out is bi-mode 220s for the Cotswolds. That leaves Devon and Cornwall, far too far to go above an underfloor diesel engine, with Intercity 125s, as has been proposed by DfT but with IEP baned from the route. Guage clearance for IEP on that route looks like costing more than electrification between Cardiff and Swansea. There's also the cost of guage clearance between Gloucester and Severn Tunnel Junc. and between Cardiff and Carmarthen to consider (possibly with a very expensive job of enlarging Narbeth tunnel to allow IEP to run the Tenby/Pembroke trains too, but it doesn't looks like that's going to be done). I say don't bother and put the money towards electrifing the Cheltenham - Cardiff route as part of the Valleys project instead. That leaves only one train type available for PAD - SWA, Intercity 225s. Give East Coast Swansea's IEPs instead. Carmarthen and Pembroke services would also be run by IC225s, with a loco-swap at Swansea (don't complain it'll take too long, there's a 7 min dwell anyway - only problem is fitting some 57s with TDM).

I think East Coast only has 7 trains each way per day beyond the wires. Even doubled-up to make 10-car sets, 35 bi-modes is far more than would be required. Anyway, shift some timeings a bit and you don't need any more than 10 67s (some of which are spares) to drag the IEPs on those 7 trains each way (and 10 locos probablly includes the requirement for ScotRail's sleepers too).

That's the status at 2020, and as I said you can take care of electrifing Devon and Cornwall services, along with XC, the MML and all East Coast's off-wire routes except Inverness by 2040ish.

The bigger problem is the Pacers. I think ValleyLines, including Cheltenham and Swansea, plus Swindon - Cheltenham can, along with the anounced schemes can be done by the end of 2018. That only leaves 1 year to electrify more local routes such as the LM scheme I suggested above and the scheme with the most DMUs per mile, London Overground's Turbostar route (Gospel Oak to Barking I think it is). I think the best way to get more electrification done is to set up a 3rd rail team, rather than a 3rd OHLE team. That would probablly start with Southern's Turbostars, then move on to SWT or Mersyrail (inc. Wrexham - Bidston).

These units should be DESIGNED with egines that will run on bio-fuels and I don't mean engineered ones, I mean fuels like Straight Vegetable Oil, (Ie... starting tank for diesel or engineered biodiesel, and running around on vapourised chip oil, new or used.) That way they'll be near carbon neutral anyway, and not rely on continuous supplies of Diesel.

Carbon neutral no, but certainly much better than diesel. I like that idea asuming you're talking regional units to replace Sprinters, not LDPE stock. Peak oil isn't just bad for things powered by burning oil, oil has other uses too. It is very wasteful to burn a finite resource such as oil when it is needed to make useful things.

 

[sprinterguy]

As far as I know the LM cascades will reduce FGW's pacer allocation to 8 143s. ValleyLines electrification should take care of them as well as all ATW's pacers, leaving all released 165/166 units to contribute to cutting down Northern's Pacer fleet.

Valley Lines electrification isn't a committed electrification project yet though, although of course many of the posters on this forum, myself included, hope it will be before the end of the CP5 Period. And I think that the Network Turbos are better suited to FGW land than to Northern services.

How many Sprinters will LM have left when the 172s are all online? Is their option of additional 172s enough to eliminate the Sprinters entirely?

London Midland are to retain three 2-car 150s (150105/7/9), with a further eight carriages (150001/2, and the two orphaned 150/2 cars removed from hybrid sets 150016/7) that to my knowledge are still pending a decision on their future.

The reason that a small fleet of Sprinters is being retained is because the Marston Vale line is not suited to 172 operation due to short platform lengths. It would be hoped that if LM still have access to an add-on order of 172 vehicles that these obstacles would be overcome to allow 172 operation of the route.

If so, hopefully that's all the diesel stock that's needed to replace Pacers.

Electrification of the Valley Lines and the availability of a number of Network Turbos (Hopefully the thirty six 165s, but nobody knows yet) will not be enough to replace ninety 142s, twenty five 143s and twenty three 144s. It could eradicate the 143 fleet for sure and could probably make inroads into the 142 fleet, but wouldn't be enough to oust Pacers completely.

Wiki says LM's 170s are used on the following routes:

• Hereford - Birmingham
• Birmingham - Shrewsbury
• Birmingham to Rugeley Trent Valley

So if you electrify those routes with 30 odd new EMUs you reduce LM to one class of DMU (if you ignore the Parry People Movers). The 170s could go to Northern to shift some more Pacers and Wales would keep the 158s released from Birmingham - Shrewsbury.

I don't think that the people of Wales would be happy at losing their direct trains to the West Midlands for connections beyond from North and Central Wales, if the ATW services were to be cut short at Shrewsbury. It's nothing more than my own humble opinion, but the only line out of the three that I can see as having an easy case for electrification is the Chase line. The Hereford services are too infrequent to warrant electrification on their own without incorporation of the Cotswold line for the FGW services as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The bigger problem is the Pacers. I think ValleyLines, including Cheltenham and Swansea, plus Swindon - Cheltenham can, along with the anounced schemes can be done by the end of 2018. That only leaves 1 year to electrify more local routes such as the LM scheme I suggested above and the scheme with the most DMUs per mile, London Overground's Turbostar route (Gospel Oak to Barking I think it is). I think the best way to get more electrification done is to set up a 3rd rail team, rather than a 3rd OHLE team. That would probablly start with Southern's Turbostars, then move on to SWT or Mersyrail (inc. Wrexham - Bidston).

Now you're talking. Get all that done ASAP and total Pacer replacement becomes an attainable reality. Now whether that sort of intensity of electrification is an attainable reality is another question....

 

[Rhydgaled]

Valley Lines electrification isn't a committed electrification project yet though, although of course many of the posters on this forum, myself included, hope it will be before the end of the CP5 Period. And I think that the Network Turbos are better suited to FGW land than to Northern services.

I know it isn't committed, but from what I've read on here and elsewhere on line it sounds promissing. Is it too late to include it in the programme of works for CP5 though? My opinion on Turbos is the same as it is on IEP, if you can minimise guage clearance costs do it. They (166s/165s) are apparently cleared for Newcastle - Hexham - Chathill (and the Ashington frieght line that some were so keen to re-open they charted a 156 to advertise), Newcastle - Middlesbourgh - Saltburn and Darlington - Middlesbourgh - Saltburn, hence my suggestion of sending some 165s there.

Newcastle - Carlise and Darlington - Bishop Auckland routes would be 156 operated, as would the Whitby line if 165s are not cleared for it. That should rid that area of Pacers, only problem is Newcastle - Metro Centre.

Electrification of the Valley Lines and the availability of a number of Network Turbos (Hopefully the thirty six 165s, but nobody knows yet) will not be enough to replace ninety 142s, twenty five 143s and twenty three 144s. It could eradicate the 143 fleet for sure and could probably make inroads into the 142 fleet, but wouldn't be enough to oust Pacers completely.

Hence why I qualified that with the word diesel, implying you would need electric stock too to achieve pacer replacement.

I don't think that the people of Wales would be happy at losing their direct trains to the West Midlands for connections beyond from North and Central Wales, if the ATW services were to be cut short at Shrewsbury.

It does however release some of the 24 158s which are the only units that can be used to improve Cambrian line frequency. They loose the Birmingham service but gain an hourly one.

 

[BR Blue]

Here is a link showing route clearance for class 165/166 and other sprinter classes.

It shows that cascading trains to other areas isn`t as straight forward as we may think.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T787_appsB_G_final.pdf

This may explain why the chiltern lines aren`t proposed for electrification. Where would their 39 class 165`s go? The same problem exists with FGW`s 165/166`s. It would require a lot of work to have them running around Cornwall and Devon.

It appears to me that the DfT`s electrification plans hinge on rolling stock replacement rather than on the business case of the line in question. The MML came second to the GWML due to it having fewer HSTs to be replaced.
The line from Cardiff to Swansea is left out because it won`t replace any stock in its own right. But electrifying valley lines would get rid of many, if not all, of the Welsh pacers.

 

[anthony263]

Here is a link showing route clearance for class 165/166 and other sprinter classes.

It shows that cascading trains to other areas isn't as straight forward as we may think.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T787_appsB_G_final.pdf

This may explain why the chiltern lines aren't proposed for electrification. Where would their 39 class 165's go? The same problem exists with FGW's 165/166's. It would require a lot of work to have them running around Cornwall and Devon.

It appears to me that the DfT's electrification plans hinge on rolling stock replacement rather than on the business case of the line in question. The MML came second to the GWML due to it having fewer HSTs to be replaced.
The line from Cardiff to Swansea is left out because it won't replace any stock in its own right. But electrifying valley lines would get rid of many, if not all, of the Welsh pacers.

If you wire to Swansea and to Maesteg/Ebbw Vale you can kill off ATW's pacer fleets as the class 150/153's can work the routes in West wales and the heart of wales line etc

 

[HSTEd]

Wouldn't it be advisable to displace the 323s from Northern and London Midland and concentrate the entire fleet of 43 units on the Cardiff/Newport/Cheltenham Lines, assuming they were perhaps rebuilt to be less commutery, perhaps even with tables?

They are three coaches and thus would nto be massively oversized for offpeak services compared to Pacers and it would concentrate all the maintenance work at one depot, with the fleet being reasonably well suited sizewise to the task required.

 

[anthony263]

Wouldn't it be advisable to displace the 323s from Northern and London Midland and concentrate the entire fleet of 43 units on the Cardiff/Newport/Cheltenham Lines, assuming they were perhaps rebuilt to be less commutery, perhaps even with tables?

They are three coaches and thus would nto be massively oversized for offpeak services compared to Pacers and it would concentrate all the maintenance work at one depot, with the fleet being reasonably well suited sizewise to the task required.

Sounds like a good idea. Especially say if you also wire Reading - Bassingstoke & Oxford - Milton Keynes, that way if Northern had a brand new fleet of say class 377 electrostars they could allow FGW to get more class 319's and it also keeps more work at Bombardier and northern gets brand new trains for a change.

The class 323's would need a refurbishment especially to get rid of the 3+ 2 seating, however if FGW did run a Swansea - Bristol TM service i would much rather class 319's which have a much higher top speed.

 

[Class172]

I have three words for the Cotswolds line: BI MODE VOYAGERS! Seriously, if all Voyagers are extended (1 panto car for 220s and 2 for 221s) and you could release enough, now 5-car, 220s from XC to run it I think, with 10-car between Oxford and PAD. To free the 220s, XC could be given either IC125s displaced by IEP or (if you can find the money for wires to Chester and 20-odd extra Pendolions) the 221s from ICWC. That way both XC and the Cotswolds line get longer trains (unless the Cotswolds services are currently run by 2x 3-car 165/166, which to my knowlage they aren't).

Just what I think, use EDMU Voyagers on it as they are well suited to such an operation.

How many Sprinters will LM have left when the 172s are all online? Is their option of additional 172s enough to eliminate the Sprinters entirely? If so, hopefully that's all the diesel stock that's needed to replace Pacers. Wiki says LM's 170s are used on the following routes:

• Hereford - Birmingham
• Birmingham - Shrewsbury
• Birmingham to Rugeley Trent Valley

So if you electrify those routes with 30 odd new EMUs you reduce LM to one class of DMU (if you ignore the Parry People Movers). The 170s could go to Northern to shift some more Pacers and Wales would keep the 158s released from Birmingham - Shrewsbury.

As much as I would like to see the Hereford line electrified, I don't think it would happen any time soon. Alternatively, I would like to see the Snow Hill Lines electrified (Worcester-Birmingham-Leamington/Stratford (not LMS-SVA)), with the gap between Bromsgrove and Droitwich Spa also filled, allowing many 172s to be cascaded and giving Worcester/Droitwich Spa an additional 'slow' Birmingham New St service as an extension of the Cross-city services.

Just as a vague thought, how would the Hereford Line perform with loco-hauled stock: the stations are fairly spaced out and the average time between them is about 10mins with line speeds that aren't that high. Could they be used (especially at peak time when up to 6 cars may be necessary) to displace some longer formations which could then go to the Chase Line for extra needed capacity.

When the east-west line opens I guess it will require 3/4 car DMUs (presumably 168s) - these will be taken from current B'ham services: what about using HSTs (potentially in 2+5 formation or longer) on these services. To my knowledge they are cleared for services as such.

 

[tbtc]

Out of interest, why are some of the people against bi-mode IEPs, but in favour of putting pantographs on Voyagers/ Meridians?

 

[ainsworth74]

Out of interest, why are some of the people against bi-mode IEPs, but in favour of putting pantographs on Voyagers/ Meridians?

For me it's a case we already have the stock and by installing a pantograph we a) get better utilization out of it and b) get extra capacity on services which desperatly need it. Whereas with IEP we don't have the stock yet so we need to get it right from the get go and seeing as their are better options around such as a) putting wires up properly in the first place (all the way to Swansea for instance) or b) locomotive hauling stock away from the wires. Both of those seem more sensible to me than deliberately building expensive/heavy units from the get go.

 

[tbtc]

For me it's a case we already have the stock and by installing a pantograph we a) get better utilization out of it and b) get extra capacity on services which desperatly need it. Whereas with IEP we don't have the stock yet so we need to get it right from the get go and seeing as their are better options around such as a) putting wires up properly in the first place (all the way to Swansea for instance) or b) locomotive hauling stock away from the wires. Both of those seem more sensible to me than deliberately building expensive/heavy units from the get go.

Those are fair points.

I just get confused with the argument that "bi-mode means carting diesel engines hundreds of miles under the wires, which is wasteful"...

...but "putting a pantograph on a Voyager allows these diesel trains to benefit from the electrification which they run under".

I guess its the difference between half full/ half empty?

 

[ainsworth74]

I just get confused with the argument that "bi-mode means carting diesel engines hundreds of miles under the wires, which is wasteful"...

...but "putting a pantograph on a Voyager allows these diesel trains to benefit from the electrification which they run under".

The lugging dead diesels around is also a good point but to me it again comes down to the fact we have 22xs now. Is carrying around diesels under wires good? No of course not, but we already have the stock so might as well make the best of an admittedly pretty bad job. However with IEP we have a chance to get it right and do the job properly and avoid the need to carry around dead diesels.

 

[Rhydgaled]

For me it's a case we already have the stock and by installing a pantograph we a) get better utilization out of it and b) get extra capacity on services which desperatly need it. Whereas with IEP we don't have the stock yet so we need to get it right from the get go and seeing as their are better options around such as a) putting wires up properly in the first place (all the way to Swansea for instance) or b) locomotive hauling stock away from the wires. Both of those seem more sensible to me than deliberately building expensive/heavy units from the get go.

Pretty much it, as an example East Coast getting 35 bi-modes sounds really daft when you could run with less than 10 existing diesel locos daily and plain electric IEPs. Plus the fact that having bi-mode IEP means we'll either need to cascade them to regional express work (which given that their fuel consumption on diesel will be silly, thanks to having enough power to accelerate as fast as an electric, is a bad idea) or still have Intercity main lines unelectrified in 2050 if we are going to get our money's worth from them (them diesel engines don't come cheap, £52.5m just for the 70 5-car bi-mode sets working from Roger Ford's price per engine and 3 engines per unit).

In other words, we already have underfloor-engined 125mph DMUs with silly fuel consuption. Making them bi-mode improves them. Making an IEP, which could easily be a pure EMU, (or an existing EMU for that matter) into a bi-mode is the opposite of an improvement. Plain electric is better than bi-mode which is better than plain diesel.

 

[Nym]

Out of interest, why are some of the people against bi-mode IEPs, but in favour of putting pantographs on Voyagers/ Meridians?

Because the voyagers and mederians are already built. And there is a finite requirement for LDPE Diesel stock, since this is already built, to avoid needing to build any more and reduce the residual amount of LDPE Diesel stock around, and if electrification continues at a decent pace, the voyagers will b retired around the time that the entire LDPE network should be electrified.

And if it isn't a new solution of off wires LDPE traction should have appeared.

As apposed to having the IEP, if electrification continues at it's current pace, (5 years to electrify a major chunk of mainline two teams) then we'll end up with having a load of 20 year old LDPE diesel stock, half way through it's life, and utterly useless.

Hitachi have said that the engines could be removed, but this makes even less sense, developing a whole new platform that will have next to no use.

The gaps to be filled that I am counting as the LDPE network are as follows...

Probably in this order..

Cardiff - Swansea and beyond (As part of the WAG/Cardiff Valleys network)
Midland Mainline, all of it.
Crewe - Chester
Edinburgh & Glasgow - Aberdeen
XC Core Birmingham - Derby, Oxford - Reading - Basingstoke, Bristol Parkway

Oxford - Woucs
Swindon - Kemble - Cheltenham
Bristol TM - Penzance (Possibly not, if an LDPE EMU haul-able by loco exists)
Warrington BQ - Chester - Holyhead & Llandudno

By my reconing thats about 25 years work. Now realistically the 22x fleet can live that long, then be retired when electrification is completed.

If the Bi Mode IEP comes about it will either give an excuse to not bother with more electrification (as they seem to be massively over providing them), or go a lot slower.

Remember aswell that 25 years will take us up to 2034 when HS2 will be nearing completion, and the UK's carbon targets will be rather tight. And the class 158 and 16x units will be nearing retirement.