Should the HSTs be Replaced?

[Rhydgaled]

But there has already been talk of extending the wires beyond Newbury because of the Bedwin services, one option even included running to Westbury and then back to Bath to allow for diversion works on the GWML.

As such, you could be looking at running IC125's for about 1/3 of the way from London to Plymouth under the wires. Which could push things quite a long towards IEP's. Espcially if there is a good case to wire up the line between Taunton and Plymouth (another 1/3 of the distance) for XC services.

The study reported that extending the wires to Bedwyn had a good case (BCR 2.58) due to maintaining through services to Paddington/Reading. However, the option for wires to Westbury had a poor case (BCR 0.31) since through services to Paddington would remain regardless of whether the wires were up. Having shiny new bi-mode IEPs maintaining the through services would probably have made the case even worse.

To cover a third of the distance from PAD to Plymouth you'd need to wire 75miles, getting you almost to Pewsey. Bedwyn would be about 66 miles wired, with another 159 to Plymouth. Halfway to Plymouth would be 112.5 miles, a bit short of Castle Cary.

With another 80miles thence to Penzance, a third of the route becomes arround 102 miles (Paddington to Frome), and half the route 153 miles (Paddington to just past Taunton (via Westbury)).

If Bristol/Taunton - Plymouth and Paddington - Westbury were all wired, that would be a fair proportion under the wires meaning the bi-mode's total fuel consumption is then likely to be less than an IC125 running on diesel all the way. It would also cut the proportion of the journey the engines are running for those who don't like underfloor engines.

I don't think Paddington - Newbury/Bedwyn is enough to make bi-mode a better choice than retaining IC125s, but extend the wires so it's closer to a 50/50 split diesel/electric and bi-mode starts to look better.

Berks and Hants Option A12.2c: Overhead AC electrification of Newbury to Cogload Junction, following GWML electrification and cross-country electrification to Plymouth. This permits long distance West of England services from Paddington to convert to electric traction. Beyond Plymouth, the RUS assumes that through services will be maintained by attaching a diesel loco at Plymouth. Paddington to Bedwyn services are also assumed to convert to electric traction.

And this sounds even better than bi-mode, no need to lumber the majority of the fleet with the maintenance costs of diesel traction. If done in CP6, the IC125s only need to manage until 2025 rather than 2035.

 

[tbtc]

I know that, I just don't think DfT/Treasury will think much of the case for electrification if it involves throwing away diesel engines that are only a few years old (though this applies to Hull, Harrogate, Cheltenham and Weston-Super-Mare wires more than the far south-west, since the latter will be further down the list for wires).

Maybe around half way through the contract (about 14 years) taking the engines out of IEP bi-modes will been seen attractive. That'd be arround 2033, which would make it a choice of suffering underfloor engines for 14 years with an IEP or stick with IC125s for the same period. IEP is so expensive that I wouldn't be supprised if the heavy work required on IC125s to get them to last that long is still cheaper. Additionally, the record of fuel ecconomy with Intercity DMUs that try to accelerate like EMUs is not good. As such, I'd expect a decent-sized IEP to drink more diesel between Newbury and Plymouth than an IC125.

The advantage of IEP is that if you electrify then you can build more trains to move bi-mode IEP onto new lines (like London - Cornwall) and have "pure" electric IEP on fully electrified routes like London - Cheltenham (once that's wired beyond Swindon).

Similarly, you could move a lot of bi-mode IEP onto XC once you have less need of bi-mode on the ECML/ GWML.

You seem to have a real problem with "suffering underfloor engines" - I really don't think that this is the issue that you make it out to be.

By 2020 a fair amount of the XC rail network will have wires on it, although only the Manchester to South Coast route will be able to run as EMU's. However finish wiring up the two routes York/Sheffield (about 45 miles) and wire up Derby/Birmingham (about 40 miles) and the Newcastle/Reading services. Do that and wire up the routes between Birmingham/Bristol and Cardiff (about 125 miles) and you could then run all the following as EMU services:
- (Southampton) Reading to Newcastle (85 miles of wires)
- (Cardiff) Bristol Temple Meads to Manchester Piccadilly (125 miles of wires)
- Bournemouth to Manchester Piccadilly (CP5 scheme)
- Cardiff Central to Nottingham (165 miles of wires)

That would only leave the following services as DMU's (miles of wires would be in addition to the above):
- (Penzance/Newquay) Plymouth to Edinburgh Waverley (Glasgow Central/Aberdeen) (350 miles of wires to include the extentions, however only 145 miles of wires to be able to run Plymouth to Glasgow Central)
- Guildford to Newcastle (35 miles of wiring but only twice a day)
- Paignton to Manchester Piccadilly (100 miles of wires, or 10 miles if the line between Exeter and Plymouth has been done)
- Birmingham to Stansted Airport (125 miles of wires)

Yes that is still a lot of services run by DMU's, but it is only about 210 miles of wires post CP5 to allow a significant number of services to become EMU's.

Yes to have EMU's running all XC services you would need to wire up 730 miles (605 for just the Voyagers) which would take a significant length of time and is highly unlikely to be suitable to be all done in one control period.

However if you don't include or pass to local operators the EdinburghAberdeen and Penzance & Newquay/Plymouth services then it would be possible for XC to get rid of their Voyagers (or at least have a lot less of them) by building just 400 miles of wires. Which is unlikely in one control period but could be likely to have been done by the end of CP7 (subject to what other lines are seen as a priority)

We'll get there eventually (and even wire up the many diversionary routes one day), but bi-mode IEP would allow through services to remain whilst we tackle electrification (one mile at a time) and let all of the branchlines with poor business cases (e.g. Newquay) to keep their long distance routes.

Moving bi-mode IEP to XC (once we've electrified routes like Harrogate, Hull, Weston) gives a lot of breathing space.

 

[The Ham]

The study reported that extending the wires to Bedwyn had a good case (BCR 2.58) due to maintaining through services to Paddington/Reading. However, the option for wires to Westbury had a poor case (BCR 0.31) since through services to Paddington would remain regardless of whether the wires were up. Having shiny new bi-mode IEPs maintaining the through services would probably have made the case even worse.

To cover a third of the distance from PAD to Plymouth you'd need to wire 75miles, getting you almost to Pewsey. Bedwyn would be about 66 miles wired, with another 159 to Plymouth. Halfway to Plymouth would be 112.5 miles, a bit short of Castle Cary.

With another 80miles thence to Penzance, a third of the route becomes arround 102 miles (Paddington to Frome), and half the route 153 miles (Paddington to just past Taunton (via Westbury)).

If Bristol/Taunton - Plymouth and Paddington - Westbury were all wired, that would be a fair proportion under the wires meaning the bi-mode's total fuel consumption is then likely to be less than an IC125 running on diesel all the way. It would also cut the proportion of the journey the engines are running for those who don't like underfloor engines.

I don't think Paddington - Newbury/Bedwyn is enough to make bi-mode a better choice than retaining IC125s, but extend the wires so it's closer to a 50/50 split diesel/electric and bi-mode starts to look better.

I didn't say that to Westbury had a business case, just that it had been looked at.

Likewise I said "about 1/3" of the distance I make the 66 miles to Bedwin 29.33% of the total, which isn't that far off 1/3 (33.33%).

I also said that it pushed t towards IEP (I didn't say that IEP would defiantly be better) using the fuel usage for the following

Class 43 + 8 Mk3 + Class 43 = 0.89 litres/100 seat km

Class 220 = 1.42 litres/100 seat km

Now assuming that IEP doesn't have a better litre/100 seat km (which there is a good chance that it will because it will be 5 coaches rather than 4 and have longer coaches so will have 315 seats compared with 200 seats in the 220's have) that means that to have the same diesel usage the IEP would have to run under the wires for 37.3% of the way. Now I know that doesn't take into account the electricity usage, however it shows that with not much more electrification than to Bedwin would be needed before the fuel economy works out about the same for services to Plymouth and probably works out better for the services to Exeter.

 

[AndyLandy]

I know that, I just don't think DfT/Treasury will think much of the case for electrification if it involves throwing away diesel engines that are only a few years old.

I doubt the diesel engines would get "thrown away." Part of the IEP design is that they're supposed to be reasonably "easy" to remove. There's been speculation about them then being used to re-engine freight or shunting locomotives to extend the lives of some of them.

And that's assuming that we don't have any better uses to cascade bi-modal IEPs to. The idea of cascading bi-modal IEPs to CrossCountry/MML/wherever and ordering new electric-only IEPs to replace them on newly-electrified GWML makes a great deal of sense to me.

 

[joeykins82]

The BCR of XC core infill electrification looks even better given that another RUS recommends running all Birmingham to Reading and beyond XC services via Coventry rather than Solihull. And I think that the GW TOC would probably rather run bi-mode IEP beyond Plymouth than mess around with maintaining and attaching/detaching diesel locos for regular services.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I know that, I just don't think DfT/Treasury will think much of the case for electrification if it involves throwing away diesel engines that are only a few years old.

I believe the engine/generator was designed for it to have some use after being removed from a train as normal generators, so they wouldn't throw them away. Any new DMU replacements will be EDMUs so they would probably be able to reuse them there since they're designed as replaceable modules.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Likewise I said "about 1/3" of the distance I make the 66 miles to Bedwin 29.33% of the total, which isn't that far off 1/3 (33.33%).

I also said that it pushed t towards IEP (I didn't say that IEP would defiantly be better) using the fuel usage for the following

Class 43 + 8 Mk3 + Class 43 = 0.89 litres/100 seat km

Class 220 = 1.42 litres/100 seat km

Now assuming that IEP doesn't have a better litre/100 seat km (which there is a good chance that it will because it will be 5 coaches rather than 4 and have longer coaches so will have 315 seats compared with 200 seats in the 220's have) that means that to have the same diesel usage the IEP would have to run under the wires for 37.3% of the way. Now I know that doesn't take into account the electricity usage, however it shows that with not much more electrification than to Bedwin would be needed before the fuel economy works out about the same for services to Plymouth and probably works out better for the services to Exeter.

Only two problems with that argument:

1. Electrification west of Bedwyn looks unlikely for now (if the wires went to Westbury IEP diesel consumption for Plymouth would probably match the IC125s nicely, based on your estimate)
2. Of the 15 trains from Paddington to Plymouth tommorow, only 4 terminate there. That makes the Penzance figures more relevant

I doubt the diesel engines would get "thrown away." Part of the IEP design is that they're supposed to be reasonably "easy" to remove. There's been speculation about them then being used to re-engine freight or shunting locomotives to extend the lives of some of them.

And that's assuming that we don't have any better uses to cascade bi-modal IEPs to. The idea of cascading bi-modal IEPs to CrossCountry/MML/wherever and ordering new electric-only IEPs to replace them on newly-electrified GWML makes a great deal of sense to me.

Sorry, I haven't seen anything suggesting what diesel engines from IEP could be used for.

As for cascades, it does seem sensible, but expensive (IEP isn't twice as expensive as Pendolino any more, but still slightly more expensive I think, and Network Rail would have to prepare the infrustructure for 26m vehicles).

 

[tbtc]

Only two problems with that argument:

1. Electrification west of Bedwyn looks unlikely for now (if the wires went to Westbury IEP diesel consumption for Plymouth would probably match the IC125s nicely, based on your estimate)
2. Of the 15 trains from Paddington to Plymouth tommorow, only 4 terminate there. That makes the Penzance figures more relevant

Or, have bi-mode so every service on the line can benefit? (unlike a 390 which couldn't)

As for cascades, it does seem sensible, but expensive (IEP isn't twice as expensive as Pendolino any more, but still slightly more expensive I think, and Network Rail would have to prepare the infrustructure for 26m vehicles).

The front/ end coaches of 390s are over 25 metres long though, so its not like you could introduce Pendolini without some clearance work.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Or, have bi-mode so every service on the line can benefit? (unlike a 390 which couldn't)

What does a 390 have to do with it? The part you quoted was comparing an IC125 on Paddington - Plymouth/Penzance trains to IEPs on the same route. If I understood "The Ham" correctly an IEP with the fuel ecconomy of a class 220 would use more diesel over the non-electrified section than an IC125 for the whole journey to Paddington until 37.3% of the route (or more) is electrified. Therefore, unless at least 37.3% of the Paddington - Penzance route is electrified the IC125 uses less fuel than a bi-mode IEP (assuming the latter's fuel ecconomy is the same as a class 220).

The front/ end coaches of 390s are over 25 metres long though, so its not like you could introduce Pendolini without some clearance work.

I wasn't suggesting 390s for XC, I was meerly pointing out how expensive IEPs are compared to other IC EMUs (and Pendos, with their tilt, aren't exactly simple) and that cascading IEPs comes with a potential capital cost.

 

[tbtc]

What does a 390 have to do with it? The part you quoted was comparing an IC125 on Paddington - Plymouth/Penzance trains to IEPs on the same route. If I understood "The Ham" correctly an IEP with the fuel ecconomy of a class 220 would use more diesel over the non-electrified section than an IC125 for the whole journey to Paddington until 37.3% of the route (or more) is electrified. Therefore, unless at least 37.3% of the Paddington - Penzance route is electrified the IC125 uses less fuel than a bi-mode IEP (assuming the latter's fuel ecconomy is the same as a class 220).

I wasn't suggesting 390s for XC, I was meerly pointing out how expensive IEPs are compared to other IC EMUs (and Pendos, with their tilt, aren't exactly simple) and that cascading IEPs comes with a potential capital cost.

I thought that you were suggesting 390s for when the Great Western lines are electrified, as a "cheaper" alternative to IEP?

 

[asylumxl]

Therefore, unless at least 37.3% of the Paddington - Penzance route is electrified the IC125 uses less fuel than a bi-mode IEP (assuming the latter's fuel ecconomy is the same as a class 220).

In theory it's fuel economy should be better, or so the specifications would imply.

With regards to the electrification part, Penzance via Bristol would be 36 percent electrified .

 

[Rhydgaled]

I thought that you were suggesting 390s for when the Great Western lines are electrified, as a "cheaper" alternative to IEP?

Nope, just that building more IEPs to cascade the first batch to other routes would be an expensive way of going about things.

Going back to the question of whether IC125s should be replaced with bi-mode IEP on the Paddington - Plymouth/Penzance then I think the answer might be yes if at least a third of the fastest Penzance - Paddington route is electrified.

The big problem is the IC125s need either major works or a derrogation from TSI PRM by the end of CP5 and there is no time for more electrification in CP5. Personally, I think sensible rolling stock policy requires foreknowlage of what electrification will take place in CP6, and in what order. IC125s might only need a derrogation for a year or two to allow electrification to Weston S.M., Cheltenham and Hull for example.

In theory it's fuel economy should be better, or so the specifications would imply.

The same journey time savings were claimed for IEP between Swansea and Cardiff with or without wires. This suggests IEP will have EMU-style acceleration even when running on diesel power. Other than Voyagers there aren't many trains that can do that, and the IEP doesn't have the tilt gubbins of a 221 so a 220 is probably the nearest comparator available.

 

[The Ham]

Only two problems with that argument:

1. Electrification west of Bedwyn looks unlikely for now (if the wires went to Westbury IEP diesel consumption for Plymouth would probably match the IC125s nicely, based on your estimate)
2. Of the 15 trains from Paddington to Plymouth tommorow, only 4 terminate there. That makes the Penzance figures more relevant

A few points to raise, firstly with IEP electrification doesn't have to be all in one long line. So any addtional 18 mile strech of electrification anywhere west of Bedwyn would improve the figures to a point where IEP was better. Including any between Exeter and Plymouth (say if the local services around Exeter were wired up and/or XC routes were wired up). As such, even if it would be more costly for say 5 years because the wires hadn't reached that point it may be better value to pay for the extra fuel during that time than pay to facilitate the use of IC125's post 2019.

Secondly, if the IEP has a better fuel efficiency by just 10% than a 220 the it would be 1.349 litres/100 seat km and would then only need 30.4% of the way to be wired (or a further 2 miles beyond Bedwyn) which given the need for the trains to exit the station to turn around and having a litle bit of an overun length would take it to not much short of that distance. It should also be noted that the HST figures used were for 8 coach sets, which provide a better seats to tonne ratio (as one coach on an 8 coach set is 9% of the weight but makes up about 12% of the seating), and so are likely to provide a slightly better fuel efficency than the 7 coach sets.

Thirdley although only 4 of the 15 trains which make it Plymouth today terminate there that is because it is a summer weekend so 2 of them carry onto Newquay. As GW are required to have a minimum of 9 services to Cornwall from London, so that is what they provide for the vast majority of the time, leaving 6 of the 15 running to Plymouth.

Forthly, where there wasn't quite the need for a full HST then with IEP a shorter 5 coach unit could be sent, which would reduce the fuel costs and track access charges signifficantly compared to a full HST. For example even if there were to be a 4+1 HST it's charges would be 54.3ppm compared to 52.75ppm for the 5 coach 222's or 52.32ppm for 6 coach 220's (if they existed), which would lead me to assume that it is likely that a 5 coach IEP could well be in the similar ball park with regards to track access charges (even though it would likely have a better seating capacity).

Finally there are other services which would also benefit as they are not as far as Plymouth such as those to Exeter and Paignton which would already be under the threshold for not needing further electrification and there are 5 of these (4 to Paignton and to 1 Exeter) today. As well as the possibility that once Reading has been compleated that there could be more services to at least Exeter, but possibly not going beyong Plymouth. This could mean that there would be 11 of 20 services a day (with very minimul works and/or small efficancies over the assumed) with equal fuel efficancey rates.

Even if we worked towards providing the right distances for it to work out for services to Penzance we would need 48 miles of electrification (assuming original fuel rates), which would mean that if the line between the junctions at Taunton and Newton Abbot were wired up it would work out at a better fuel efficancy for IEP.

 

[Rhydgaled]

A few points to raise, firstly with IEP electrification doesn't have to be all in one long line. So any addtional 18 mile strech of electrification anywhere west of Bedwyn would improve the figures to a point where IEP was better. Including any between Exeter and Plymouth (say if the local services around Exeter were wired up and/or XC routes were wired up). As such, even if it would be more costly for say 5 years because the wires hadn't reached that point it may be better value to pay for the extra fuel during that time than pay to facilitate the use of IC125's post 2019.

Even if we worked towards providing the right distances for it to work out for services to Penzance we would need 48 miles of electrification (assuming original fuel rates), which would mean that if the line between the junctions at Taunton and Newton Abbot were wired up it would work out at a better fuel efficancy for IEP.

Indeed, Taunton to Newton Abbot wiring would probably do the job. However, since E-Voyager is dead the XC stock would be unable to benifit, so I don't know which section would be the most benifitial to wire up.

It should also be noted that the HST figures used were for 8 coach sets ... likely to provide a slightly better fuel efficency than the 7 coach sets.

That is irrelevant since Great Western no longer have any 2+7 sets, they lengthened them all to 2+8.

GW are required to have a minimum of 9 services to Cornwall from London, so that is what they provide for the vast majority of the time, leaving 6 of the 15 running to Plymouth.

That's still more to Penzance than Plymouth.

Forthly, where there wasn't quite the need for a full HST then with IEP a shorter 5 coach unit could be sent, which would reduce the fuel costs and track access charges signifficantly compared to a full HST.

5-car IEP? No Thanks.

As noted above, FirstGW decided that they needed to lengthen all their IC125s to 2+8, rather than having 2+7 sets they could use at lower cost on less heavily loaded services. The prospsed fleet of 5-car IEPs is insane.

There seems to be two sorts of 'off-peak'. The first is the obvious one, during the day between the morning and evening peaks. The second is early morning (before the peak) and late evening (after the peak). Apart from the second type of off-peak I would be very supprised if 5-car sets were not guaranteed to be full and standing between Reading and Paddington at the very least.

 

[AndyLandy]

I would be very supprised if 5-car sets were not guaranteed to be full and standing between Reading and Paddington at the very least.

That's easy. Have a five-car EMU IEP waiting at Newbury to attach on to the incoming five-car bi-modal IEP and run the train as a ten-car the rest of the way to Paddington.

 

[Xavi]

That's easy. Have a five-car EMU IEP waiting at Newbury to attach on to the incoming five-car bi-modal IEP and run the train as a ten-car the rest of the way to Paddington.

Not sure how many times this has had to be mentioned over the years, but London to Devon & Cornwall services require full length trains at least as far as Plymouth and to Penzance on a number of services, particularly May through September. All services from the Riviera at 1003 through to the 1903 are regularly 80-100% or more full to Exeter and there's just no business case for dropping carriages (splitting units) there or at Plymouth. You don't see London - Scotland services shortened north of Preston / Newcastle even though many are less than full by some way, so don't expect it on these services either. BTW apart from the missing 1533 slot, the high summer services via Berks and Hants to Exeter is as good as half-hourly from 1400 to 1945 - hardly a likely candidate for 5-car trains of any sort. It's a very busy important trunk route that needs to be on the CP6 electrification programme. It's not some quiet backwater line. The recent Newbury to Westbury electrification extension business case exercise will become completely different when you reach Taunton and further west.

 

[JamesRowden]

Not sure how many times this has had to be mentioned over the years, but London to Devon & Cornwall services require full length trains at least as far as Plymouth and to Penzance on a number of services, particularly May through September. All services from the Riviera at 1003 through to the 1903 are regularly 80-100% or more full to Exeter and there's just no business case for dropping carriages (splitting units) there or at Plymouth. You don't see London - Scotland services shortened north of Preston / Newcastle even though many are less than full by some way, so don't expect it on these services either. BTW apart from the missing 1533 slot, the high summer services via Berks and Hants to Exeter is as good as half-hourly from 1400 to 1945 - hardly a likely candidate for 5-car trains of any sort. It's a very busy important trunk route that needs to be on the CP6 electrification programme. It's not some quiet backwater line. The recent Newbury to Westbury electrification extension business case exercise will become completely different when you reach Taunton and further west.

If the Paddington-Penzance service was made hourly, how many 26m IEP or 23m 222 carriages do you think would be required to seat all of the pasengers on the Plymouth-Penzance section?

 

[Rhydgaled]

That's easy. Have a five-car EMU IEP waiting at Newbury to attach on to the incoming five-car bi-modal IEP and run the train as a ten-car the rest of the way to Paddington.

Not so easy on the way back.

If this was a rural line, not the GWML, and the bi-mode IEPs were class 158s it'd be no problem. But with IEP you have isolated sets, first class, kitchens etc.

With 158s in multiple:

• you can walk right through to the other end while the train is moving if you want a seat and everyone has boarded at one end
• you can walk right through to the other end while the train is moving if you have boarded the end nearest to the station entrance (perhaps because you would have missed the train otherwise) but you need to be in the other portion
• there's no kitchen to worry about duplicating
• there's no first class to worry about keeping together
• there's less wasted space for cabs and crumple zones
• you can manage with just one guard/conductor if you want (although more would probably be desirable in a long formation), presumably with isolated sets each needs a guard/conductor to respond to 'Attention Conductor - Call For Aid Activated'

Additionally, one of the claimed reasons for chosing IEPs rather than Pendolinos for the misguided, un-necessary, IC225 replacement was that they managed to reduce IEP costs slightly so a 9-car IEP works out cheaper per seat than a 9-car class 390. However, the 11-car class 390 is still cheaper per seat than the 9-car IEP. That prompted me to suspect that an 5-car IEP is more expensive per seat than either a 9-car 390 or a 9-car IEP. I checked, and I was right. In other words, on a per seat basis, a 9-car IEP is much better value for money than a 5-car one.

In fact, two 5-car IEPs (315 seats each) in multiple would have only three more seats than a 9-car IEP (627 seats). If you are paying for 10 IEP coaches, would you rather have a 10-car set with, perhaps, 715 seats, or two 5-car sets totaling 630 seats?

 

[Xavi]

Lord Berkeley refers to the levels of demand and overcrowding on the Paddington to Devon & Cornwall route on page 12 of the October edition of The Railway Magazine. Time for investment, both rolling stock and CP6 electrification.

 

[The Ham]

Lord Berkeley refers to the levels of demand and overcrowding on the Paddington to Devon & Cornwall route on page 12 of the October edition of The Railway Magazine. Time for investment, both rolling stock and CP6 electrification.

... and yet every time anyone suggests that it should be anything but HST's (due to age and the lighter passenger loadings past Plymouth meaning that split workings may work well) and they get treated like heritics for daring to suggest that the HST's may not live forever and/or there maybe a better way of providing the service.

 

[daikilo]

... and yet every time anyone suggests that it should be anything but HST's (due to age and the lighter passenger loadings past Plymouth meaning that split workings may work well) and they get treated like heritics for daring to suggest that the HST's may not live forever and/or there maybe a better way of providing the service.

It is quite possible that the HST has one of those rare attributes of being infinitely renewable. It may not be perfect but it is proven and apparently predictably affordable (which in financial circles is a huge plus). I personally am challenged to explain why electrification should extend west of say Paignton.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It is quite possible that the HST has one of those rare attributes of being infinitely renewable. It may not be perfect but it is proven and apparently predictably affordable (which in financial circles is a huge plus). I personally am challenged to explain why electrification should extend west of say Paignton.

HSTs only make sense when they can serve major city terminals and I can forsee that in the not too distant future they're going to start banning diesel services from these stations to reduce the pollution. They weren't cutting edge back when they were introduced and it shows today.

There may be some wonderful ideas on how to not-quite-electrify some difficult branches with battery trains and so on but for a long mainline route you can't do anything better than 25kV AC OHLE. Yes, we might work out how to do hydrogen powered trains but that will just need a whole network of relatively unproven infrastructure and it still can't ever beat the sheer energy efficiency of 25kV transmission. The only lines I can never see being electrified even despite the power of the network effect are the pseudo-heritage lines like Fort William to Mallaig whose value derives from being antiquainted.

 

[joeykins82]

I was on a service out of Paddington last weekend and the adjacent train was an HST. Looking up close at the corrosion around the window frames in particular really gets across just how old the sets are.

 

[Beveridges]

Old maybe, but the Class 20's are still going and they've been around for nearly 60 years!

 

[D365]

That's nothing; the IoW 483s are reaching 75 years!

 

[starrymarkb]

Old maybe, but the Class 20's are still going and they've been around for nearly 60 years!

They are used on rather lighter duties though

 

[Photohunter71]

Long rakes of coaches pulled by a beefy new electric loco! I'd like to see that too,however I reckon one or two of the 125's will end up in the NRM when the new IEP's come along so most of the old stuff will be reclaimed and turned into coke cans.

 

[jopsuk]

Old maybe, but the Class 20's are still going and they've been around for nearly 60 years!

The faster you go, the higher the potential fatigue and the worse the consequences if something reaches the end of its fatigue life.

 

[D365]

The faster you go, the higher the potential fatigue and the worse the consequences if something reaches the end of its fatigue life.

Good that the 483s are only 40mph then :P Considering that the HSTs were supposed to be an interim until electrification (which aside from EC and WCRM, LDHS electric was killed in the 80s to now), and most passenger diesels should only make it to 30 years, I think IC125 has served its time well. Especially considering the long periods of intensive 125mph running seen daily.

43s and 20s, though both art-oft-thou double-headed, are two very different beasts.


Wonder what my compatriots are thinking of the ICx train which will replace LH trains in Germany as well as ICE 1/2, potentially. Both younger then our IC225. And so much more youthful then the HSTs [But faster of course.]

 

[starrymarkb]

Indeed, and the Japanese seem to look at retiring flagship stock at around 20 years (The NEX stock dating from 1992 was scrapped in 2009)