What will happen to the VTEC plans for retaining some MK4s?

[Rhydgaled]

One of the 91s is going to be preserved (I want to say 91110), as well as the vinyls of 91111.

Sadly, I don't think any official 'protection' has ever been put in place for 91110; 91131 was on a list of locomotives that the National Railway Mueseum were interested in, but 91110 wasn't and that was before 91111 was named 'For The Fallen' so 91111 may have taken 91131's place on that list. That worries me; as are suggestions that only one 91 is likely to be preserved.

we might as well make use of the fiercely competitive train building market at the moment to get some good quality new stock for a reasonable rate. As you estimate, it should last until the early/mid 2050s, by which point they'll have either been reverted to EMUs or will be operating slower services on a more 'secondary route' in nature MML.

Interesting point about taking advantage of the rolling stock market. That does not however address my fear that if the Meridians are replaced on the MML the fact that there are enough trains capable of running the route (and others such as Leeds-Bristol-Plymouth, Newbury-Westbury etc.) sans-wires will mean little progress is made on electrifying those routes until the 2050s, by which time we'll have passed the current target dates for greenhouse gas reductions (2050 is one of the big ones I seem to recall, along with 2030). Faster running requires more energy, so 125mph intercity routes should be priorities for electrification; use the advantagous rolling stock market to build regional express bi-modes (something like class 175s with unit end gangways and a pantograph) for routes such as Liverpool-Norwich instead. Such routes are going to take longer to electrify throughout, and there are more cascade prospects for such units than for 125mph Intercity stock if the routes they work do get electrified.

 

[ash39]

Think we can be fairly certain only one will go into the national collection due to space restrictions. That's not to say others won't survive in one form or another, but it's difficult to see how one could pay for itself as a static exhibit.

The ACLG could be interested in one, and they have the know-how within their ranks to keep one operational. Trouble is who would want/need to use it?

 

[Jowdan Naowsee]

What about Alliance Rail? They were proposing to use 225 sets for their GNWR Euston - Blackpool North services, yet it's been the best part of a year since their website or social media has been updated. Are talks still in progress there or has this been shelved?

 

[Domh245]

Interesting point about taking advantage of the rolling stock market. That does not however address my fear that if the Meridians are replaced on the MML the fact that there are enough trains capable of running the route (and others such as Leeds-Bristol-Plymouth, Newbury-Westbury etc.) sans-wires will mean little progress is made on electrifying those routes until the 2050s, by which time we'll have passed the current target dates for greenhouse gas reductions (2050 is one of the big ones I seem to recall, along with 2030). Faster running requires more energy, so 125mph intercity routes should be priorities for electrification; use the advantagous rolling stock market to build regional express bi-modes (something like class 175s with unit end gangways and a pantograph) for routes such as Liverpool-Norwich instead. Such routes are going to take longer to electrify throughout, and there are more cascade prospects for such units than for 125mph Intercity stock if the routes they work do get electrified.

I think it's just a different way of thinking about it. Just because a bi-mode can run under it's own power, doesn't mean that it has to, you don't have to cascade these bi-mode units to secondary routes, you just take (most of*) the engines out from underneath them and put them back into service. Should there be some sort of revelation at the DfT/Network Rail, and we start to see a sensible rolling program of electrification going forward, your points about 125mph routes requiring more energy will still be true, and so will be higher up the priority list.

Why not build both brand new bi-modal intercity stock and brand new bi-modal regional express stock if you can afford it? I'm personally of the opinion that any self-propelling multiple unit on the network going forward should be bi-modal - easy future proofing, not too difficult to implement if you use a DEMU style transmission, and the weight penalty compared to a pure DMU is minimal (plus it's an easy way of getting around Jo Johnson's 2030 deadline for purely diesel powered stock). I think it is a crying shame that Northern's new 195s are DMMUs, they have near identical EMU siblings so I can only hope that there was a very good reason to go for DMMUs because there are good arguments as to why they should have been bi-modal from environmental and operational points of view.

* I still think that the limp-home ability of the 801s is something that will come in handy on purely electric routes. Obviously it's more likely to be used on the ECML rather than the GWML, but even with the robust construction of the GMWL equipment there will still be failures - albeit ones that are far easier to recover and repair.

 

[Chester1]

Otherwise we end up with threads along the lines of "My Solution For Re-Using Those Redundant Carriages From 460s" etc.

That sums it up really. Enthusiasts are not likely to support scrapping loco hauled stock. I think 12 sets of 8 mark IVs could be used by EMT simply because there is not the capacity to make the Mark IIIs compliant by 2020 but there is probably just enough time to rewire 96 Mark IVs. The MR suggestion of using batteries etc is excessive, just accept they will be slower and a temporary solution. I can't see them having any future on the ECML because they will be razor blades before there is sufficient capacity to run more services than the 800s and 801s can opperate.

 

[43096]

Sadly, I don't think any official 'protection' has ever been put in place for 91110; 91131 was on a list of locomotives that the National Railway Mueseum were interested in, but 91110 wasn't and that was before 91111 was named 'For The Fallen' so 91111 may have taken 91131's place on that list. That worries me; as are suggestions that only one 91 is likely to be preserved.

91131 is still listed. 91111 isn’t designated itself, but the vinyls on it are designated. Answers on a postcard as to how you preserve vinyls without the loco and what happens when, as is inevitable, the vinyls fade over time. Just an utterly dumb decision - just take some high quality photos and/or ask the designer to donate the design artwork.

 

[43096]

That sums it up really. Enthusiasts are not likely to support scrapping loco hauled stock. I think 12 sets of 8 mark IVs could be used by EMT simply because there is not the capacity to make the Mark IIIs compliant by 2020 but there is probably just enough time to rewire 96 Mark IVs. The MR suggestion of using batteries etc is excessive, just accept they will be slower and a temporary solution. I can't see them having any future on the ECML because they will be razor blades before there is sufficient capacity to run more services than the 800s and 801s can opperate.

The current Modern Railways has a suggested solution to get more power without batteries - MAN can uprate the VP185 to give more power.

 

[Rhydgaled]

91131 is still listed. 91111 isn’t designated itself, but the vinyls on it are designated. Answers on a postcard as to how you preserve vinyls without the loco and what happens when, as is inevitable, the vinyls fade over time. Just an utterly dumb decision - just take some high quality photos and/or ask the designer to donate the design artwork.

Do you happen to have a link to the full list? I tried to find it some time ago and could only find a version from before 91111 (or its vinyls) was designated. I hope that somebody has digital copies (including off-site backups) of the artwork for both 91111 and 91110 so that if these are preserved the vinyls can be reprinted and reapplied if and when the originals fade.

As for displaying the vinyls without the loco, perhaps it would be possible to build a mock-up of half a class 91 (one side and the front) out of plywood (or something) and have it against a wall (so that it appears the loco is coming out of the wall) and stick the vinyls (and nameplate) on that. I don't think I'd mind that for 91111, but for 91110 and 91131 I hope the entire loco is preserved.

Think we can be fairly certain only one will go into the national collection due to space restrictions. That's not to say others won't survive in one form or another, but it's difficult to see how one could pay for itself as a static exhibit.

The ACLG could be interested in one, and they have the know-how within their ranks to keep one operational. Trouble is who would want/need to use it?

Static exhibits in museums never pay for themselves do they? The NRM have two sites; if 91110 and 91131 are both preserved the former could be displayed next to Mallard in York and the latter in Shildon. Alternatively, 91131 (as the last loco built at Crewe works) would probably be a fitting exhibit for the Crewe Heritage Centre, but 91110 belongs with Mallard I feel (prefrably with 91110 retaining the Battle Of Britain Memorial Flight name and vinyls). If one (prefrably 91131 in Swallow livery) is to be kept operational (by the ACLG) I think a rake of mark 4s should be preserved to run with it; partly because a 91 looks silly hauling older stock and partly to maintain the possiblity of 140mph running on railtours. The mark 4 set could also be used with any preserved class 90s and/or the class 89 to make more use of the coaches (since there may only be sufficient demand for one or two tours per year with the 91). If the whole of 91111 is preserved I think it would make more sense to display it somewhere related to rememberance and/or military history rather than at a railway muesum.

I hope the retention of IC225s for Edinburgh fast services happens, along with the proposed use of IC225s on Open Access Blackpool services, so that those 91s can be kept occupied; giving time for the preservation of 91131, 91110 and possibly 91111 to be worked out.

I think it's just a different way of thinking about it. Just because a bi-mode can run under it's own power, doesn't mean that it has to, you don't have to cascade these bi-mode units to secondary routes, you just take (most of*) the engines out from underneath them and put them back into service. Should there be some sort of revelation at the DfT/Network Rail, and we start to see a sensible rolling program of electrification going forward, your points about 125mph routes requiring more energy will still be true, and so will be higher up the priority list

Having spent thousands (or, probably, millions) on diesel engines, I don't think the government would be too keen on spending millions more so that the engines can be thrown away. Either the bi-modes would kill electrification dead or secondary routes with plain-diesel DMUs would be wired up first.

Why not build both brand new bi-modal intercity stock and brand new bi-modal regional express stock if you can afford it?

Because, if electrification gets going again and does focus (as is sensible) on routes served by 125mph trains, the requirement for 125mph trains with self-powered capability will drop, possibly significantly. At roughly 80 route miles per year (I think 400 route miles will have been wired in CP5) the MML and the XC core from York to Bristol and as far as Taunton could have been electrified by 2030. If I've added the numbers correctly there are already 140 class 800/802 units built/on-order and the entire XC intercity fleet is only 68 trains (58 Voyagers and 10 IC125s).

I'm personally of the opinion that any self-propelling multiple unit on the network going forward should be bi-modal - easy future proofing, not too difficult to implement if you use a DEMU style transmission, and the weight penalty compared to a pure DMU is minimal (plus it's an easy way of getting around Jo Johnson's 2030 deadline for purely diesel powered stock). I think it is a crying shame that Northern's new 195s are DMMUs, they have near identical EMU siblings so I can only hope that there was a very good reason to go for DMMUs because there are good arguments as to why they should have been bi-modal from environmental and operational points of view.

I can see your point about the 195s; passive provision for convertion to bi-mode (diesel-electric with a pantograph well plus empty space for a transformer and any other required kit), wouldn't be a bad idea for any new diesel stock. That way, if you start using them under the wires you can make them bi-mode but in the meantime you don't have to maintain the electric kit or shift the weight of it. And if the class is planned to spend any significant ammount of time running under the wires, just fit the electric kit from the outset.

* I still think that the limp-home ability of the 801s is something that will come in handy on purely electric routes. Obviously it's more likely to be used on the ECML rather than the GWML, but even with the robust construction of the GMWL equipment there will still be failures - albeit ones that are far easier to recover and repair.

I don't agree there. By having even a single diesel engine you've added to the maintainance workload, weight and technical complexity of the unit. Technically-speaking, the class 801s are bi-modes but operationally they have to be treated as an EMU (no diversions via unwired routes and no running beyond the wires to places like Lincoln). That seems to be almost the worst of both worlds to me; once you have one diesel engine you incur most of the disadvantages of diesel traction; I almost want to say you might as well add more diesel engines and have the operational flexibility of being able to use unwired diversionary routes. I wonder how the maintainance / number of components / technical complexity would compare between a class 801 and a similar train where the limp-home capability is provided by batteries instead of a diesel engine?

 

[Prestige15]

What about Alliance Rail? They were proposing to use 225 sets for their GNWR Euston - Blackpool North services, yet it's been the best part of a year since their website or social media has been updated. Are talks still in progress there or has this been shelved?

Thats still on the card as far as i know.

 

[43096]

Do you happen to have a link to the full list? I tried to find it some time ago and could only find a version from before 91111 (or its vinyls) was designated. I hope that somebody has digital copies (including off-site backups) of the artwork for both 91111 and 91110 so that if these are preserved the vinyls can be reprinted and reapplied if and when the originals fade.

Current list is here: https://group.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/RHDAB-Designated-Items.pdf

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Thats still on the card as far as i know.

Only 3-4 sets though.

 

[Domh245]

Having spent thousands (or, probably, millions) on diesel engines, I don't think the government would be too keen on spending millions more so that the engines can be thrown away. Either the bi-modes would kill electrification dead or secondary routes with plain-diesel DMUs would be wired up first.

Any MML or XC bi-modes will be conventionally procured by ROSCOs, so the government won't have spent any money on them other than any subsidy. The hope would be that the Government realises that electrification is the way forward and starts electrifying based on the merits of each route in terms of reduced running costs, ability to increase service levels, etc, perhaps because they suddenly find themselves with more money on their hands than they know what to do with (unlikely) or they have to start chasing every opportunity to reduce emissions. (One scenario being more likely than the other). That said, if the way in which they assess the BCRs means that routes with DMU operations should be prioritised, so be it. If the DfT determine that they gain more from electrifying some DMU route/s (examples of which would be good to debate) rather than the MML or XC core, then that is their decision to make, after all it is their money* to spend - hopefully they would then be able to justify it!

*Obviously it is taxpayer money (if the private sector doesn't start funding major infrastructure improvements as the current SoS hopes) - but they are the ones making the decisions based on mandates from the population.

Because, if electrification gets going again and does focus (as is sensible) on routes served by 125mph trains, the requirement for 125mph trains with self-powered capability will drop, possibly significantly. At roughly 80 route miles per year (I think 400 route miles will have been wired in CP5) the MML and the XC core from York to Bristol and as far as Taunton could have been electrified by 2030. If I've added the numbers correctly there are already 140 class 800/802 units built/on-order and the entire XC intercity fleet is only 68 trains (58 Voyagers and 10 IC125s).

Again though, that is if you still subscribe to the old-railway school of thought of buy new and cascade away, Bi-modes don't have to work like that. Those 125mph self-powered trains simply become 125mph EMUs overnight with the associated reduced maintenance and operational costs. You don't have to try and force 125mph bi-modes onto routes for which they are entirely unsuitable just because of the fact that they can move under their own power - really we should be designing rolling stock that is optimised for the routes they operate above the solebar, with everything below the solebar being easy to change out for the most suitable power supply - be that a Transformer, a Diesel engine, Batteries, Hydrogen, etc.

I don't agree there. By having even a single diesel engine you've added to the maintainance workload, weight and technical complexity of the unit. Technically-speaking, the class 801s are bi-modes but operationally they have to be treated as an EMU (no diversions via unwired routes and no running beyond the wires to places like Lincoln). That seems to be almost the worst of both worlds to me; once you have one diesel engine you incur most of the disadvantages of diesel traction; I almost want to say you might as well add more diesel engines and have the operational flexibility of being able to use unwired diversionary routes. I wonder how the maintainance / number of components / technical complexity would compare between a class 801 and a similar train where the limp-home capability is provided by batteries instead of a diesel engine?

Yes the maintenance workload increases, and there is another point of failure, etc, but that can be said of many redundancy/emergency systems - I do feel that passengers stuck on trains that have brought down wires in the future will be thankful of donkey engines (or even beefy enough batteries) that keep the AC running and can limp them back under the wires, or to a place where they can be detrained comfortably. It is impractical to give each train enough redundancy to run un-wired diversionary routes, but I do feel that giving trains the contingency to maintain a decent passenger environment is definitely the right thing to do. With the 801s the easy answer is to give them donkey engines - after all the same depots are maintaining 800s and 802s and the vehicles with the donkey engines are essentially just a typical 800/802 motor vehicle. The only real disadvantages you get get are a weight penalty, another point of failure, and a small increase in maintenance - but evidently the DfT feel that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and I would agree.

 

[randyrippley]

Leave the new stock on the East Coast
Scrap the 91 fleet, and use the Mk4 rakes along with a new batch of 73/9 conversions on Waterloo-Exeter, Bristol-Portsmouth, and maybe Waterloo-Weymouth.
Maximises the use of the third rail on these routes, with diesel on the non-electrified sections

 

[CosherB]

Leave the new stock on the East Coast
Scrap the 91 fleet, and use the Mk4 rakes along with a new batch of 73/9 conversions on Waterloo-Exeter, Bristol-Portsmouth, and maybe Waterloo-Weymouth.
Maximises the use of the third rail on these routes, with diesel on the non-electrified sections

And how many trains does that procure?

 

[Chester1]

Any MML or XC bi-modes will be conventionally procured by ROSCOs, so the government won't have spent any money on them other than any subsidy. The hope would be that the Government realises that electrification is the way forward and starts electrifying based on the merits of each route in terms of reduced running costs, ability to increase service levels, etc, perhaps because they suddenly find themselves with more money on their hands than they know what to do with (unlikely) or they have to start chasing every opportunity to reduce emissions. (One scenario being more likely than the other). That said, if the way in which they assess the BCRs means that routes with DMU operations should be prioritised, so be it. If the DfT determine that they gain more from electrifying some DMU route/s (examples of which would be good to debate) rather than the MML or XC core, then that is their decision to make, after all it is their money* to spend - hopefully they would then be able to justify it!

*Obviously it is taxpayer money (if the private sector doesn't start funding major infrastructure improvements as the current SoS hopes) - but they are the ones making the decisions based on mandates from the population.


Again though, that is if you still subscribe to the old-railway school of thought of buy new and cascade away, Bi-modes don't have to work like that. Those 125mph self-powered trains simply become 125mph EMUs overnight with the associated reduced maintenance and operational costs. You don't have to try and force 125mph bi-modes onto routes for which they are entirely unsuitable just because of the fact that they can move under their own power - really we should be designing rolling stock that is optimised for the routes they operate above the solebar, with everything below the solebar being easy to change out for the most suitable power supply - be that a Transformer, a Diesel engine, Batteries, Hydrogen, etc.



Yes the maintenance workload increases, and there is another point of failure, etc, but that can be said of many redundancy/emergency systems - I do feel that passengers stuck on trains that have brought down wires in the future will be thankful of donkey engines (or even beefy enough batteries) that keep the AC running and can limp them back under the wires, or to a place where they can be detrained comfortably. It is impractical to give each train enough redundancy to run un-wired diversionary routes, but I do feel that giving trains the contingency to maintain a decent passenger environment is definitely the right thing to do. With the 801s the easy answer is to give them donkey engines - after all the same depots are maintaining 800s and 802s and the vehicles with the donkey engines are essentially just a typical 800/802 motor vehicle. The only real disadvantages you get get are a weight penalty, another point of failure, and a small increase in maintenance - but evidently the DfT feel that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and I would agree.

I agree that one diesel engines for 801s are a good idea for the reasons you outlined. However I think future express trains are more likely to have a battery than a backup diesel engine, especially if Grayling's discontinuous electrification happens. I think the 801s will do 40mph on diesel. The 230 battery version will have a range of 50 miles with a considerably lighter unit but top speed of 60mph. Once a battery of a similiar size to the 801 diesel engine can power a 9 coach train for 20-30 miles at 40mph then they will be the better bet due to being less complicated + allowing lines to have neutral sections.

 

[D365]

Once a battery of a similiar size to the 801 diesel engine can power a 9 coach train for 20-30 miles at 40mph then they will be the better bet due to being less complicated + allowing lines to have neutral sections.

At 40mph? Something like the li-ion batteries from the Class 379 IPEMU trial would suffice.

The benefit of using a diesel power pack, as above, is maintenance commonality, and that the IEP platform was designed from the start with diesel capability.

 

[randyrippley]

And how many trains does that procure?

It keeps in use however many trainsets are in use on the ECML at the moment, and enables the 159 fleet to be deployed elsewhere

 

[hexagon789]

It keeps in use however many trainsets are in use on the ECML at the moment, and enables the 159 fleet to be deployed elsewhere

Presumably two Class 73s seeing as one is woefully under-powered for a Mk4 set? Or are you proposing making a series of uprated 73s? Also would you keep the DVT, and if not what do you do about the coupling between the last PO and the DVT seeing as it's a tightlock not a buckeye?

 

[gingertom]

Presumably two Class 73s seeing as one is woefully under-powered for a Mk4 set? Or are you proposing making a series of uprated 73s? Also would you keep the DVT, and if not what do you do about the coupling between the last PO and the DVT seeing as it's a tightlock not a buckeye?

a pair 73/9 top and tail.

 

[D365]

It keeps in use however many trainsets are in use on the ECML at the moment, and enables the 159 fleet to be deployed elsewhere

Will that not be fulfilled by the bi-mode rolling stock that is likely to be procured under the next South West franchise?

 

[randyrippley]

Presumably two Class 73s seeing as one is woefully under-powered for a Mk4 set? Or are you proposing making a series of uprated 73s? Also would you keep the DVT, and if not what do you do about the coupling between the last PO and the DVT seeing as it's a tightlock not a buckeye?

You could top and tail them
or you could use shorter sets push and pull with a DVT at one end and a 73 at the other. That has been done with the 73 fleet before......ever heard of the TC fleet?
If the 73/9 can cope with the Scots sleepers I'm sure they could cope on the SW lines

 

[hexagon789]

a pair 73/9 top and tail.

2,840hp is still not a lot of power in my book, even for maximum 100 mph running.

You could top and tail them
or you could use shorter sets push and pull with a DVT at one end and a 73 at the other. That has been done with the 73 fleet before......ever heard of the TC fleet?
If the 73/9 can cope with the Scots sleepers I'm sure they could cope on the SW lines

Assuming you mean the 3/4 Trailer Control MUs used with the 4REPs, then yes I have. But they had 3,200 hp, a 73 has 1,420 continous in electric mode and is hardly light for that power output.

Just think it'll be hopelessly sluggish.

A full 9-car plus DVT Mk4 rake with two 73/9s in electric mode gives only 5 hp per tonne. A 225 set has 12.5 hp per tonne, a VTEC 2+9 HST 7.9 hp per tonne, a 158 9.1 hp per tonne and a 100 mph Class 170 9.5 hp per tonne.

5 hp per tonne is not much grunt at all, granted you can shorten the rakes, you lose 41 tonnes per TO or PO.

 

[tbtc]

Scrap the 91 fleet, and use the Mk4 rakes along with a new batch of 73/9 conversions on Waterloo-Exeter, Bristol-Portsmouth, and maybe Waterloo-Weymouth.
Maximises the use of the third rail on these routes, with diesel on the non-electrified sections

a pair 73/9 top and tail.

So, given the pair of 73s is going to take over a coach of length, I guess that means dropping two coaches from services between Waterloo and Salisbury to endure that the total train length can be accommodated? Down from nine coaches of passenger accommodation to seven coaches then?

But then the top and tail 73s, you're not going to be able to split part of the train at Salisbury/ Yeovil (and no more portion working to Bristol etc), which means running seven coaches all the way through to Exeter, where the capacity generally isn't required (other than a handful of days a year when the boarding schools are opening/closing IIRC?).

So, fewer coaches on the busiest part of the route, too many coaches at the quieter section of the route, but we get to reintroduce loco-hauled trains so a certain type of enthusiast thinks that this outweighs the negatives?

 

[randyrippley]

Doesn't mean dropping any coaches......I can remember the days when Salisbury-Waterloo was run with a Warship+12 and there was space at Waterloo for another Warship to draw the set back out. A pair of 73+8 or 10 mk4 isn't going to be longer.
You could run them as sets of 73+5 (each with a DVT), with pairs of sets splitting/joining at Yeovil or Salisbury.

 

[gingertom]

So, given the pair of 73s is going to take over a coach of length, I guess that means dropping two coaches from services between Waterloo and Salisbury to endure that the total train length can be accommodated? Down from nine coaches of passenger accommodation to seven coaches then?

But then the top and tail 73s, you're not going to be able to split part of the train at Salisbury/ Yeovil (and no more portion working to Bristol etc), which means running seven coaches all the way through to Exeter, where the capacity generally isn't required (other than a handful of days a year when the boarding schools are opening/closing IIRC?).

So, fewer coaches on the busiest part of the route, too many coaches at the quieter section of the route, but we get to reintroduce loco-hauled trains so a certain type of enthusiast thinks that this outweighs the negatives?

certainly doesn't work if the train needs splitting. Ah well back to the drawing board.

 

[43096]

certainly doesn't work if the train needs splitting. Ah well back to the drawing board.

Back to the crayon board, I would say.

Yet another of the notorious “let’s come up with dumb ideas to re-use stock without thinking it through” threads.

 

[yorksrob]

It's very hard to beat three 159's for capacity.

 

[gingertom]

Back to the crayon board, I would say.

Yet another of the notorious “let’s come up with dumb ideas to re-use stock without thinking it through” threads.

you've obviously got some local knowledge that I lack, thanks for enlightening.

 

[superalbs]

It's very hard to beat three 159's for capacity.

Just shy of 600 seats in that formation I believe.

 

[The Ham]

IF you were to want to release 159's you could have a few diagrams a day they avoided the peak services, as such you could have 6 or 7 coaches in a train which would provide similar capacity (or slightly more) than a pair of 159's. That could allow the 159's to run services run by the 2 coach 158's, which could then allow those to be used to run more 10 coach services and more services to Bristol.