Great Western Coffee Shop

A post elswhere on these forums has suggested the possible need for a new but relatively cheap and simple train for secondary routes, class 148 was suggested !

In recent years, trains have become hugely costly and complicated, and arguably over specified for local or secondary routes.
I would agree that a new design is called for with emphasis on modest cost, reliability and long working life.
A reasonable specification might be

2 car DMU
Top speed 60 MPH (unless a higher speed is achievable for little extra cost)
Single glazed windows that all open.
Basic heating from engine waste heat only, controlled by gaurd.
No air conditioning
No wifi
No at seat power outlets
Second class only
No buffet, possibly a trolley if worthwhile
A single, very wide power operated door operated by the gaurd (emergency exit at each end also)
A manualy controlled ramp for wheelchairs, prams and light freight.
A large open area for wheelchairs, prams, cycles, and a single "york container" as used by Royal mail.
One vehicle to consist entirely of 2+2 seating at least half at tables.
Other vehicle to be about 50% seating as in the other vehicle, the other half being the open area refered to above, and a gaurds office.

Within the lifetime of todays new trains, I expect that mail, light freight, and parcels will return to the railways. It would therefore be desirable to have an area designed for light freight, parcels, mail, heavy luggage, prams, cycles, and wheelchairs. Tip up seats could be usefully installed in this area.

Such a train should be relatively affordable provided that as many parts as possible are standard and not specially developed.

One engine should automaticly shut down when not needed, to save fuel.
Multiple operation should be possible, but would not be the norm as a gaurd would be needed in each unit.

I do not claim my thoughts to be entirely original, see the post in the "how flexible is your hometime" on which I partialy base my thoughts.

Some interesting points, but...

Tarka Line already has at least one 70mph stretch, so 60mph needs to be revised upwards (not to mention mainline running).

First question is how we define a secondary route?

I think we all agree that Paddington Cardiff is a primary route, but what about Plymouth Penzance?

What you are defining seems fine for Branch lines, but it would be seen as a step down for those on the Henley branch. 

Are there really primary, secondary and tertiary routes?  In which case what you seem to be talking about are the tertiary routes.


I can think of many secondary routes where 2 car would cause chaos.  And as has been said Tarka line already has some 70 mph.  Don't forget some secondary route trains need to do some mainline running occasionally and if they go too slowly they will soon eat up valuable paths.


Double glazing and opening windows may not be the best way to optimise energy consumption


Bean counters would say not very good use of space.  I thought you were trying to keep the cost down?

Overcrowding is still an issue on many secondary lines.


I think public expectation have changed on some of these.  WiFi and power outlets are starting to be seen as the an expectation on anything but a very short distance.  This would soon be seen as laughable in my opinion.


What we can surely learn from the past is that the future is unpredictable.  An interior that can be changed easily would perhaps be the best insurance.

The question is whether diesel traction has a long tern future?

Would an electric transmission, to allow future conversion be prohibitive. Culd a low cost electric traction package be developed?


Can only agree that this is the ideal.  Some interchangeability standards for some components would perhaps help here rather than everything being tied to a manufacturer.  However, we would not want this to freeze innovation.

Regarding single glazed opening windows "not being ideal for energy conservation" there is no energy to conserve ! no air conditioning to be fitted, and heating to be free from the engine coolant, it being no more wastful to open a window than it is to dispose of the heat from the engine cooling system.

No definition was made in the original post elsewhere (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=12084.msg127751#msg127751), but example routes were given.


Maybe - the routes where a half price train would make a real difference to the financial case - at least at the starting point for investors / doubting Thomases!


Yep, noted. These are not units to replace other - rather to augment.  And if a 2 car causes chaos through growth on a newly hourly service, run every half hour instead ;-) .     That may seem an odd suggestion but there's something of a parallel on service like Portsmouth - Cardiff which was occasional 5 or 6 car trains when it was class 33 diesel and coaches; when dropped to 2 carriages and run hourly, the loadings rocketed.


As a difference between some service and no service, these things are acceptable.  And I was very surprised asking around about what people thought when we had the LHCS sets on Taunton - Cardiff ... they were popular and acceptable.  Remember too that we don't have WiFi on local journeys such as Penzance to London, no buffets on Bedwyn to Paddington, no first class on Portsmouth to Cardiff, no power points on Swindon to Southampton, and so on.


Agreed - airline can convert in a few hours from one class to another, or to freight.  So a weekday commuter train would become a weekend train with luggauge and cycle space (and, yes, a modest fee for dogs and cycles is reasonable)


And agreement from me to.  Let's build a three figure number of these units. :D

I had a look at your suggested 'secondary routes' Graham.

It seems to me they were mainly 'local' routes.  Of course you included your own at the front  :D but I don't think the nature of a journey from Chippenham to Yeovil is the same as one from Stapleton Road to Clifton Down.

I think we are talking of local services and long distance services, rather than routes.  Lawrence Hill is on a 'primary' route (a 'long distance route' then, as well as a 'local' one (especially when we get the four tracks, eh, FTN   ;) ).

So no toilets is acceptable Truro to Falmouth, but not Weymouth to Bristol (it's just too far, or too slow is another way of looking at that facility).  I don't see whether supplying first class or not has anything to do with it as that is just a commercial and political decision, just as it was for Brunel and Saunders in 1840 not to cater for hoi poloi.

As an aside I dislike the expression 'Cross Country'.  Bristol to London is Cross Country, if you like.  I don't see why people who have a O or a D in London should be able to travel quicker and more comfortably than someone travelling from Bristol to Leeds. 

So Broadgage has a good suggestion for local journey provision but the notion that these bus things are acceptable to travel from Bristol to Portsmouth is to me, not where we should be at.

I would anticipate that these class 148*s would not be used as a downgrade from existing longer or better specified trains, but that they would be an improvement versus overcrowded or outmoded single car units.
Also a relatively cheap and simple unit for new routes that might not be viable if more costly higher specified trains had to be used.
Another application would be to provide a regular weekday commuter service on heritage lines that at present provide only a limited steam hauled service.
By use of a simple design with the minimum to go wrong, all but major overhauls should be within the capabilities of a heritage railway workshop.

If passenger numbers dissapointed, then the low leasing and running costs of these units might allow continuation of a service that would otherwise cease.
If passenger numbers exceeded expectations and resulted in overcrowding, then that sugests that either better trains or a more frequent service could be justified.

On routes primarily operated by longer or better specified units, a few 148s might allow additional early morning or light night services to be provided at modest cost.

*please do not call them "broadgage trains" lest foolish persons think that different track will have to be built!

That would only be the case if you ever spelled gauge correctly though...   ;D

Paul

Hmmm. I think I disagree with some of those points. Infact, nearly all of them...

2 Car DMU would perhaps not be considered future proof. How about a DEMU which could be converted to an EMU when we eventually run out of crude oil? Say a generator powering an electric engine which could be removed and swapped for OHLE or 3rd Rail at a later date.

60mph is again not future proof. Not to mention that some of these trains *may* need to run on lines cleared for 100mph+ which consequently could be disastrous for any late running services whether InterCity or Regional.

No air conditioning I also disagree with. Being able to open windows is one thing, but you are affectively creating a greenhouse affect if the trains stand empty for most of the day (Strong example of this was the Summer TransWilts Swindon - Weymouth runs, where the 158 sat in the siding for most of the day and was like a sauna on departure from Weymouth)

Heating generated from the engine is a sensible idea, but has such technology ever been successfully trialed and what are the costs vs. Electric Heaters. Say if the unit was a DEMU would it be cheaper to use electric heaters?

No WiFi: Despite my previous rants about this on the forum, 3G on some networks has improved considerably in recent years. On the Westbury - Bath stretch I get a very good signal for most of the way. There is a dropout on 2 stretches of the line which isn't a huge problem for sending emails etc. Even running Video Streaming isn't too bad if the video has buffered enough ahead by the time you reconnect. Also with the deployment of 4G in the UK I would say that Train WiFi would soon become obsolete. Of course there are some areas where Cellular Data coverage is cr*p, but then essentially that is what Train WiFi really uses.

Power Sockets I would say should be installed on all new trains. Lots of people are becoming increasingly reliant on Laptops, Smart Phones etc. Any opportunity I get to charge my iPhone I do even if it's for 15 minutes as that could mean the difference between knowing if my train is on time or knowing my battery is dead! Again I would say to include this is a modest cost.

Second Class only, I would perhaps suggest having a section similar to Virgin Trains or Southern Railway which can alternate between First and Standard Class as required. Personally I would use First Class if it were on routes such as Bristol - Weymouth if it meant access to a power socket and a table.

Agree with the No Buffet. Use a trolley instead but perhaps have a small area where Hot Water can be boiled and a microwave for hot food. Occupied Space would be minimal with a small stock cupboard with microwave and the hot water can be heated with a plug socket to an Urn on the trolley.

Also agree with a wide space for cycles, wheelchairs and prams. Maybe have a toilet or 2 and the trolley cupboard in the same location?

Doors should be automatically operated by the Guard with SDO fitted for stations such as Avoncliff and Melksham.

Guards Office isn't necessary IMO as they can use the rear cab at the back of the train. Also agree with the use of 2+2 seating. 3+2 is awful and I personally won't take a seat in the 3 seats row. I'd rather stand or perch against the wall near the door such as on Class 357 c2c units ;)

Well thats my 2p worth :D

I think the use of such trains on such services as Bristol to Weymouth is not to be encouraged, and agree with TheTrout that such long distance (or 'long time' in the case of the afore-mentioned service   >:(  ; essentially anything over an hour) should have the same degree of comfort and convenience that you would expect if you travelled Swindon to London.  That latter trip is only 80 miles (yes I know it's 77, pedants) and is less than an hour's travel time (if you are lucky) so why should Swindonians enjoy an air-conditioned Wifi'd IEP and Weymouth-onians sit in a draughty rail bus for two hours with none of those things?

I think I am repeating myself (see earlier post) but in summary, buses on rail are only suitable for bus trips.  It is for this reason that I dislike the concept of 'community rail', which tries to do both things, well, only one really.  I would prefer that there was a fast service between Bournemouth, Weymouth and Bristol that called only at Dorchester, Yeovil, Trowbridge and Bath.  One would expect for these areas, that were defined in the late lamented SW Regional Spatial Strategy as (indeed) strategically significant, that they would be connected by fast connections with stock of a very high standard on a line that would be of the same speed standard as the Main Line.  The same pattern of service would be provided on Bristol to Portsmouth route, which is also trying to be all things to all men at present.

The places in between ('farmyards', as my Bristol to Pompey student travelling wife used to call them) could be served by BroadGage's  bus-trains.  These would connect with the above inter-cities in a two tier service.

   

But you're comparing Swindonians travelling to London with Weymouth-onians travelling to Bristol, when the correct comparison would be the quality of stock on the Weymouth to London route.

Though I agree that the proposed stock would be unsuitable for the Bristol to Weymouth service for several reasons. I think the original poster had in mind relatively short journeys where top speed and degree of comfort would not be quite so critical, such as some of the rural branches.

I think the debate is fairly academic anyway, as the volume of dmus displaced over the rest of the decade will mean there are more than enough to go around, even if all the pacers are withdrawn. As well as the obvious dmu cascades of Thames and Cardiff valleys services, Edinburgh - Glasgow, Transpennine and (at the top end of the cascade) Midland Main Line will yield lots more. The Meridian cascade will be interesting, and offer the opportunity for some relatively good quality longer distance stock to enhance secondary routes.   
 

I have been reading this thread with interest as I first mentioned the idea of cheap DMU to replace teh 14Xs and provide more capacity. in another post.

I think that there are couple of things that should be looked at.

Most most modern EMU/DMU units in Europe are articulated which means more train with less wheels in agiven length so they could be three car or even 4 car.  So there would be room for lugage and bikes and small freight

Secondly they could have a power unit similar to the Stadlers which have a short section in the middle which houses the power pack. It also has through communication within the unit. The advantage of this would be you could take the diesel engine out and put a pan on top or even make them bi-mode.

Top speed should be 100 for short mainline sprints.

As to bells and whistles I think probably a/c is required plus good heating if our climate is going to fluctuate between extremes. Probably power points and wi-fi although even when working I regarded train journies for business as my time and wasn't obssessed with doing work. Luckly i did the bulk of my travelling before mobile phones and wi-fi. Brreakfast on the St. Pancras Derby train was my favourite.

Off the subject maybe another thread, in the lighter side?  I do feel sorry for all you people who think you have to work on a train journey. Chill out enjoy the ride. 

Class 148? Personally, I think we need to be looking a Sprinter-like rather than Pacer-like, so class 157? Agreed, newer trains are getting too expensive to run though.

Several posters seem to have disagreed with you here. However, I think 2-car is the right solution (a mix of 2-car and single car units would be better, but universal-access toilets waste too much space for a single car unit to be worthwhile), but would add a VERY important element to the specification. The units MUST have corridor connections on the ends, to allow passengers to walk between units in multiple without disembarking.

Even Pacers have a 75mph top-speed I think, so the top-speed of these new units should be at least that. Also, there seem to be plenty of class 150s and Pacers around anyhow, the real shortage seems, to me, to be in cheap-to-run, lightweight, regional express units (like the class 158).

Assuming you want to replace 150/1s and Pacers though, I'll carry on (provided you are only planning on using them on relatively short (journey time, certainly no more than an hour and prefrably much less than that) branch line services).

Agreed. Probablly don't need the trolley given the short duration of journey.

Guards don't have an 'office' (other than the rear cab) on Sprinters and Pacers do they? One door isn't enough, it'll take too long to board/unload. A Pacer door layout might work (remembering we are only talking about short branch lines, which tend to have lots of stations, something as long as Pembroke Dock to Swansea needs doors in vestibles at the ends of coaches, like a 153 or 158). I agree with 2+2 seating, and a luggage area in one coach, but if you are losing half a coach for the latter you might need a third coach in the unit.

I would very much like freight and parcels to return to rail on mass (could mixed traffic trains be made to work on the modern railway, with single-car 'frieght multiple units' attached to the back of passenger trains as required?) but sadly I don't think it very likely.

Why not only have one engine anyway (or two in a 3-car set)?

As I said above, corridor connections between units should be a key component of the specification. You then have the option of portion working if half a branch needs 4-car but the other half can make do with 2-car, and can more easily lengthen services if 2-car turns out to be insufficent.

Sadly yes.

Toilet because branch line stations are normally hopelessly lacking in facilities (for bus-rail connections, provide a waiting room, and prefrablly toilets, at the interchange point or else).

Public Address AND LCD next station because TSI PRM (Technical Specification for Interoprability Persons of Reduce Mobility, or somthing like that) regulations say so (after 2019) I beleive.

Agreed on the first count, and largely on the second count (the heritage railway workshop should be able to handle day-to-day maintenance, but I don't see a problem with going elsewhere for really major work). When the steam service is running (normally in busy holiday periods), the reduction/removal of National Rail services would free up the multiple units to strengthen other services.

Sounds like a good idea on the face of it, but running out of crude oil is not a problem (there's enough left to fry us all, using it up would probably wipe out our species and many others) and more importantly it will probably be 2040 before enough of the primary and secondary routes are electrified so a start can be made on wiring local branches, so plenty of time for new diesel branch-line units to become life expired before local branches are electrified anyway.

But a 158 has air conditioning, and not many windows that open (and the ones that do are hard to open, and cannot be opened by passengers).

Don't laptops tend to have WiFi network cards but not 3G/4G ones? If so, a change in standard computer hardware would be needed to facilitate the use of 3G/4G in place of WiFi.

A 2-car unit, given any train with a toilet must have a fully accessible one by 2020, should only have one toilet I think, we need the space for seats. Putting the luggage space etc. near the toilet seems to be a good plan though as it could help optimise seating layout in the rest of the unit.



Edit note: One quote mark amended, for clarity. CfN.

AFAIK that is exactly how the heating works on most older units. Not sure about 158s, but believe that's how most 15x units are heated.

But if there is only one when it fails there is nothing!



Edit note: Quote marks amended, for clarity. CfN.

Such fun when Engine No 1 shuts down on a sinlge class 153!  ;D


And I sure hope ANY new Passenger stock sits on Bogies, the long Fixed wheel base was done away with in the Victoria era, excess rail and wheel replacement costs far exceeds the cost of bogies.

I base my suggestions not only on the need for a much cheaper train for secondary services, but also on the need for simplicity and reliability.
An engine in each car is IMO essiential for a 2 car unit in order to provide "get you home redundancy" rather than blocking a single line or stranding passengers somewhere remote.
Transmision from engine to wheels could be electric or mechanical depending on costs.
I cant support air conditioning for low cost trains, it adds appreciably to cost and weight and absorbs significant engine power thereby reducing performance or needing larger engines.
Air conditioning is far from reliable if compared to opening windows, repairs tend to be expensive.

Heating from engine waste heat is established technology and works fine, with virtually zero running costs.
I would consider electric heaters for preheating in a depot or terminus, powered from the grid, interior lighting being powered thus also in order that the train may be cleaned or prepared without running the engines.

Multiple operation should be possible for rescue or assistance purposes or ECS moves.
I cant support through gangways, too much to go wrong and too much time taken in coupling and uncoupling, also complicates design and adds weight and cost.

If a 2 car unit is not sufficient, then that suggests that something longer is needed rather than regular multiple operation in passenger service.

Leads to a thought and some (genuine) questions (I do not know the answers)

Question 1: How many lines are there in GW land (and beyond if you like) where a 2 car dmu is adequate for an existing service?

Question 2: If growth occurs because the new units provide a more frequent service how many of these would continue to be adequate with a  2 car unit?

The second question ellendune asks is especially apt as the Ebbw Vale experience has shown.  What they thought would be comfortably covered by a two car unit often requires strengthening.  I have no details from Barnstaple, but my limited observation suggests that the increased services brought extra pax.  Since the days when frequent two car trains were considered an improvement in longer less frequent ones, increases in passengers on routes like those though Bradford-on-Avon have overwhelmed the two car trains originally substituting the loco and coaches, requiring extra coaches.  Further, roads have become very much more congested and opportunities for winning traffic is even better.  Secondary routes with a good service could benefit from low cost units with, perhaps, non-powered centre cars as an option as passengers are wooed by a reliable and less crowded service.

In fact road traffic is reducing slightly, so congestion could only be increasing if traffic is moving from off-peak to peak.

On the lines Broadgage seems to have in mind would there be significant congestion?  The services mentioned by GrahamE were of mainly rural location IIRC (but perhaps I don't 'RC'  ;D   ).

I don't like these suggestions at all.  I think TM access to the whole train and also pax comfort quality is what sells train travel, not starting out by treating them like a modern version of Brunel's third class 'parliamentary' services.  If it does not pay to provide that standard quality on any route then I think it would be better not to do the route as a rail service.  I suspect a decent local coach service could be cheaper.  In the Netherlands, I travelled on Connexxion 'buses' that were far more comfortable than National Express coaches (not that this is difficult).

I think the same applies to stations.  I know it's difficult, with the 19th century Lord Mucks having banished the stations to remote locations on the edge of towns but I feel that for pax safety and convenience, attempts have to be made, using the planning system and other incentives, to move facilities to the vicinity of stations and encourage a degree of constant social supervision thereby.

In fairness, the old station pubs were quite good in that way, but of course many have closed.  If you look at North Tawton with GE and SV, one has an example of a pub hanging on for grim death up a culde sac.  I bet they would like to see the station reopen!

In summary, I think we should be looking towards an increase in quality, not a diminution of it.

I stand corrected on the traffic situation, thanks. 

In terms of comfort, I couldn't agree more that this is crucial to encouraging more people to travel.  My suggestion of adding carriages as trains become full is precisely to keep a good seat pitch, sense of space and (for me vital) more window seats.

As we know, one of the (myriad) problems with the 14x units is the inability to pass between units for revenue control and on many services tickets need to be bought aboard.  IMO the initial emphasis should be on improving the actual trains as that is finally what passengers want.  However, the whole ambiance of travel is important and station accessibility/environment certainly need addressing as revenues increase.

In the remotest of areas, single cars will probably always suffice, but I know some years back when the SRA surveyed the Heart of Wales line communities, rail travel didn't even feature in many people's thinking when planning journeys as the service was/is so sparse.  As a tourist, I find the 153s unsuitable with high windows and children can't easily see out.  The needs of leisure travellers need to be taken into account when designing trains for use in rural areas if the landscape is being used to attract riders.

A handful of thoughts ...

a) Although overall traffic levels for private cars have fallen slightly, my understanding is that it's not uniform, and where there's significant population growth traffic is still on the increase.  With 2000 new homes in Melksham ... it's still on the increase here.  With higher numbers still in Chippenham and Trowbridge, and with Swindon / Royal Wootton Bassett population growth too ... It's got very hard to turn out of our road over the last 3 years - certainly not shrinking near us!

b) You may consider TransWilts "Rural".  I can get from / to the M4 motorway in a car in less than 20 minutes.  It can often take twice that at busy times, and busy times seem to have spread out from the peak.  Getting into Swindon - as (I suspect) into most towns served isn't always a clear run.   Yeovil? Exeter? Plymouth? Truro?  Par?  (Oh - wait - Par may not get too busy!)

c) If you switch from a through train to one that requires a change, you'll loose 40% of your occasional passengers and 46% of your commuters [source: Westbury campaign].  And if you replace a train by a bus, you'll loose between a further 85% and 90% [source: our own counts] of the passengers.   So - through train [from London] carries 30,000 passengers.  Add in a change and you're looking at 12,500.   Switch that to a bus and you're down to 1,500 passengers.   Yes - a coach may be cheaper to run, but it's pretty pointless to switch if if only takes a tiny proportion of the traffic that's ready, willing and able to take public transport and to pay for the privilege!

d) If we build enough features into new trains (all First class, with restaurant, hairdresser and masseur), we're going to make it so expensive that we will get the equality you may desire - the equality of no-one being able to afford it!

This specification for a cheap to build and run train sounds remarkably like the specification for Pacer trains from 30 year ago. Wikipedia reads: The 'Pacer' series was a project by British Rail (BR) to create a train, with low running costs, for use on rural and suburban rail services. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacer_%28train%29.
And look how happy railusers are with these trains. I have travelled on these trains between Shefield and Lincoln and everything on the train rattles. Regulars on these trains carry a supply of paper to make up wads to try and quieten the noise nearest their seats.
What is a secondary route? Our local Cotswold Line would, I think, be classified as a secondary route and most people dislike having to travel for up to and over 2 hours on a 165 Turbo. What they would think of an even more basic train I dread to think, unless the fares were halved for travellers on such trains.

I was thinking more of something cheap for routes that at present use single single car units, or for new minor routes where the cost of modern stock is prohibitive, not replacing turbos.

A few thoughts GrahamE about your thoughts....  (I think they are addressed to Trainer *and* me but here goes)

I am trying this editing lark for the first time. Hopefully my comments will be in italics.

a) Although overall traffic levels for private cars have fallen slightly, my understanding is that it's not uniform, and where there's significant population growth traffic is still on the increase.  With 2000 new homes in Melksham ... it's still on the increase here.  With higher numbers still in Chippenham and Trowbridge, and with Swindon / Royal Wootton Bassett population growth too ... It's got very hard to turn out of our road over the last 3 years - certainly not shrinking near us!

Well, with respect, that is perhaps a somewhat parochial and anecdotal approach to what was a general discussion of Broadgage's proposal for cheap and cheerful trains, but indeed, the irresponsible urbanisation of dear old Wiltshire is sadly a given fact.    If you really have 'congestion' then a good case for PT already exists and you should be pushing an open door there.  However my knowledge of Wilts politics tells me you are not and they are living in the 60s on Wilts Council still.  In short, the councillors are roads and car mad (see Westbury Bypass history).  I wonder you don't have 'gated communities' there already to go with the many golf courses that I bet will spring up to go with them   :D 

b) You may consider TransWilts "Rural".  I can get from / to the M4 motorway in a car in less than 20 minutes.  It can often take twice that at busy times, and busy times seem to have spread out from the peak.  Getting into Swindon - as (I suspect) into most towns served isn't always a clear run.   Yeovil? Exeter? Plymouth? Truro?  Par?  (Oh - wait - Par may not get too busy!)

Is the foregoing about the M4 etc, supposed to be an advantageous situation?  Sounds like the Wilts urban nightmare I was already alluding to.  Nevertheless, all making a good case for equally good quality urban public transport (PT).

c) If you switch from a through train to one that requires a change, you'll loose 40% of your occasional passengers and 46% of your commuters [source: Westbury campaign].  And if you replace a train by a bus, you'll loose between a further 85% and 90% [source: our own counts] of the passengers.   So - through train [from London] carries 30,000 passengers.  Add in a change and you're looking at 12,500.   Switch that to a bus and you're down to 1,500 passengers.   Yes - a coach may be cheaper to run, but it's pretty pointless to switch if if only takes a tiny proportion of the traffic that's ready, willing and able to take public transport and to pay for the privilege!

Good (some new to me) facts here and thanks very much GE, for them.  It seems to me that there is a huge difference between a Falmouth to Truro local hop, a genuinely rural service such as a 15 mile long string of villages to a market town (Taunton to Yeovil as was?) , and an inter-urban connector such as Bristol to Swindon.  The clue here is how long you have to sit on the thing.

d) If we build enough features into new trains (all First class, with restaurant, hairdresser and masseur), we're going to make it so expensive that we will get the equality you may desire - the equality of no-one being able to afford it!

I think the idea that no first class or catering is available from Bristol to Brighton (see today's 1700 Brighton to Bristol) but *is* so available between Bristol and London is indefensible.  The fact it takes three and a half hours in the first case (130 miles) and two hours fewer in the second case (120 miles) is proof that we need a swift move away from that old railway concept of 'cross country' travel.  FGW is providing the same level of 'comfort' on the Brighton for three and half hours,   :(  as it would from Truro to Falmouth or indeed Melksham to Swindon.   

Fair enough. If you can reverse the trend in ever more powerful diesel engines under trains so that two engines are what is needed to run the train at normal performance, with the power provided by one engine (if the other fails) only being enough to limp home (say at around 30mph), that shouldn't be a problem (if your engines are beefy enough that you can have one shut down most of the time, it's wasteful to have multiple engines in my opinion).

Agreed, just need to design windows that give good airflow (would wind-down windows like a car be possible on trains?)

Cambrian line class 158s from Aberystwyth and Pwllheli combine at Machynlleth on a regular basis (almost every two hours) for onward travel to Birmingham. I've been traveling on the Cambrian roughly every two weeks for the past six months and I don't think the coupling action has taken more than 2 minutes. This means both branches get through services to Birmingham every two hours and the core Machynlleth - Shrewsbury - Birmingham section gets 4-coaches nearly all the time. In my opinion, nothing that does not have corridor connections on the ends should be run in multiple in passenger service, unless you can justifty full staffing in all units and passengers in any units can access all stations served by the service (as you say, there's no problem running ECS workings in multiple). That in turn means you need to add much more weight and much more cost adding more coaches to the units, that you'll only need some of the time.

The Sprinter series is much less hated than Pacers though, and a damn sight cheaper, lighter (and hence, I suspect, more fuel-efficent) than most modern stock. Therefore, I think recreating the Sprinter would be a good move, whereas recreating Pacers wouldn't be. However, there doesn't seem to be as much of a shortage of Pacers and class 150s (for the short branch routes that seem to under disscussion here) as there is of relatively cheap, longer-distance, secondary (regional express) routes (like Cardiff - Portsmouth). The class 158 is, in my opinion, THE tool for the jobs on such service but, as can be seen by the fact these 158s are 3-car formations rather than 4-car formations, there simple aren't enough class 158s. This is the gap I believe most needs filling.

Which is one reason why I think the corridor connections on unit ends are so important. Running through trains from every little 2-car branch line over busy mainlines is unlikely due to taking up valuable paths with short trains, but couple the short trains from the branches into one big train for the mainline section you get more through journey opertunities from one mainline train path than you would without.

This is a problem I really would like to get to the bottom of. Buses are, apparently, much cheaper to provide than trains and are the only public transport in many rural areas. However, far more travellers seem willing to go by train over a car than by bus over a car. I think public transport should aspire to be an attractive alternative to the car just about anywhere, but to do that we need to make buses attractive as rail is.

Fishguard has recently seen a comparatively reasonable service introduced from the previous 'no-use to locals' service. It's been a while since I used it, but I'd say the services that serve only local traffic (so excluding the boat train, with it's passengers bound for the Stena Line ferry) are fine with 2-car units as far as Carmarthen. However, as has been said above reducing the number of changes of train is important, so there are several trains which work through beyond Carmarthen, and one evening train is in the evening peak out of Swansea, where 2-car probably isn't enough (if it is, it won't be for long if rail use continues to grow). It is this sort of suituation where a fleet of 2-car units with corridor connections would come into its own, you have a 4-car (maybe even 6-car) train where you need it, and reduce that to 2-car were you don't (either by detaching a unit which terminates or splitting a portion off to serve a branch). However, if you can't have corridor connections on the unit ends (125mph INTERCITY trains for example) then, unlike the Department For Transport (DaFT), you need to build longer trains rather than short units that you expect to run in multiple.

I'm going to clarify a couple of my comments ... I suspect you may be reading far more into some of them than I ever intended!


Indeed it is parochial. It's our parish and the neighbouring one, and the point I was making is that any decrease isn't uniform.  Remove the parochial (i.e. more local) element, and you'll get an average figure which hides some areas of continuing growth and you'll provide an average not an appropriate answer.  And, yes, it's anecdotal.  I've not done the surveys.  I am aware from previous work that changes of less than 20% may not be noticed at all, although there is a point in road crowding where a few extra cars tip a road beyond capacity and just a sprinkimg of extra vehicles can have a significant slowing effect.


No - that trunk artery is fine.  It's the A350 corridor that continues to be an issue - Yarnbrook, north Melksham, the Chippenham bypass, and the link road from Chippenham to the motorway at its Chippenham end.


Err - I wasn't making a point about such long journeys (and I'm not going to express a view now).  Overall, I'm looking at / answering / commenting about routes and flows where the journey on the unit is likely to have a maximum duration of around an hour and often be far less, and where the alternative to a train carrying 80 people is a bus carrying 20, 20 private cars and 5 taxis each carrying 2, and 10 people not making the journey at all.  And even though that's 21 vehicles on the road for one train, I suspect I'm underestimating.   Stand roadside, watch cars go by and look at how many people each is carrying, and you'll see what I mean!


They are a breath of fresh air compared to how things were in the days of Wiltshire COUNTY Council. However, that doesn't mean that everything changes overnight.  All the ducks were in a line untl the franchise got cancelled; now it's a question of "what comes in the next two years" - and we hope, ask and work for something that's not just a "hold on as it is" answer which would leave the provision behind as the world and requirements march on.

There are excellent / ongoing discussions - looking beyond the start of a TransWilts service - in this thread; the success of one of these "cheap as chips" new services would make it a victim of its own success, yes ... so the corridor / length / intermediate carriages issue is good discussion.   The other thing is to look at frequency but you start hitting line capacity issues and the need for extremely high standards on Network Rail routes when perhaps light rail would provide a more cost effective answer.  I'm going to answer Rhydgaled in a separate post; it is certainly worth understanding just why buses don't get the same love and use levels.

Yes, it was the old County Council that I had to deal with, sorry for the rant about Wiltshire, but as a boy and young man, we Bristolians loved the Wiltshire market towns of Melksham, Devises, Warminster, etc, and the surrounding soft dairy countryside.  It was a slow road to visit Stonehenge or Salisbury (not too quick by rail either!), but a joy to visit the county and sample the Wadworths 6X (ah, the memories). 

I detest the attempt to make a major road artery from north to south, especially now there is continuous dual carriageway from Southampton to Bristol via A34 and M4 and we now see freight coming back to rail on that trajectory, hurrah!    We just didn't need all that A350 and A36 spaghetti through lovely Wilts and east Somerset (especially around Frome,  - OK for JB in his Mclaren to practice on I suppose    ;D ).

Rant over, I agree with a lot of the points made here and it seems to me that if we get continuous growth, we can start looking towards two-tier services of genuine inter-city services with, in between them, the locals.  I don't pretend to know what is affordable for those, because we will not have London Overground quantities of pax, but I think if pax are on a train for more than half an hour nowadays, they will want their wifi - that at least (and that is a huge advantage over car).

That day coming is a long way from the 'parliamentary' service that you have through Melksham now, but I admire your personal efforts to change all that, immensely.

When you look back we have always had several types of DMU for different services.

Starting with the Derby lightweights for true branch lines which evolved into the 101s et all and the 14X and Sprinters

Then there were the "Express" Trans Pennine Gloucester/Swindon Cross Countries which have morphed into the 158s and 175 185 type units

Then there were the all door suburban units 117 et all which worked out of St Pancras Marylebone and Paddington and were replaced by the Networkers the Turbo was a diesel version of the generic NSE  Networker with it's AC and DC versions.

The 170s are the 737s of the rail worlds and sit between  types one and two.

The problem we have is  a shortage of units overall which leads to the use of unsuitable types on inappropriate services as they are the only type available to run the particular service.

So we possibly need two types of cheaper DMU a true branch line unit with just a loo. But in sufficient numbers for it to be confined to true branches under 30 minute journey times. 2*3 seating. 2/3 car units

Secondly an RE type unit for longer Cross Country type journies up to say 3 hours. This to have loos wi-fi  2*2 seating and some tables plus provsion for water heating for a trolley service. 2/4 car units.

In both cases the coaches to be articulated cheaper to build less track wear etc. More seats in the same length so less need platform lenthening or SDO.

Both types with end corridor connections.

However I would suggest that as the Cross Country might well spend part of its journey under the wires that it becomes a loco hauled push pull set with a modern ED loco with 4000 hp electric and 1500/2000 diesel which could cope with a 160 ton 6 coach 2 unit train.

Whist true IC pasengers have to put up with Pendolinos, Voyagers and the IEP.

Although some may be lucky and still have "Low Density!!" HSTs.

So we have three sorts of units really:

1) Which ones are we short of?

2) Do we need more of the basic ones at the moment or should we really be thinking about the more of the middle group?

Basically IMO we are short of all types particularly for strengthening trains where coupling restrictions mean you need similar type units. Although it gets complicated when teh Chiltern 172s can't coupke with the LOREL ones.

I would suggest it's really the middle ones we need for the longer RE type journies. With electrifcation there will be lots of current uniis spare the Turbos the 185 from Trans Pennine etc to cascade down.

My suggestion of an ED loco hauled set for these services is based on the fact provided the exisitng electrification programme keeps going there will be lots of routes with large portions of wire.



 

Yes they can be coupled together. The LOROL 172s are compatible with Chiltern 172s... along with 165 and 166s!

I don't think they are - they *can* pair with Chiltern 165s/168s - although there's little point with 165s owing to different top speeds. But making them compatible to run over the tube lines on the Met means that LOROL can't borrow them.

IIRC the 172s cannot operate on the Met without being 'boxed in' between other tripcock fitted units - and because they'd then be too long for the platforms that Chiltern use it isn't ever planned to be done in service.

Even the relatively small number of Chiltern/LOROL DMUs lead to all sorts of odd permutations regarding mutual compatibility.

Paul

I'll bet our host would love to see one of the units you describe at Melksham!!!

Chance would be a fine thing, but meanwhile, I do like 8F's push-pull flexibility ideas and the ability to run under the wires.  This solution is used a lot on secondary routes on the mainland and could be useful for coping with strengthening in the peaks and 'footex' and the like.

I'd say five or six:

• 1. INTERCITY (eg. IC125, IC225, Class 390)
• 2. Regional Express (classes 159, 158, 175, 444 (ish) and 5-WES (no eg. there, I think that's about it)
• 3. Rural (eg. classes 156 and 153) (possibly long-distance like regional express, but with lower linespeeds, smaller populations served and perhaps more stations to call at)
• 4. Outer-suburban (eg. classes 450/350, 377, 172)
• 5. Inner-suburban/branch (eg. classes 150, 378, 376, 143)

The possible sixth category is 'Careless Mistakes', in which category I would probably put class 170s (I've read on fourms several times that they have poor acceleration, no good for suburban services which is otherwise what they are suitable for).

Note that I have grouped inner-suburban and branch stock, class 150s are ok for branch line journeys under half an hour, particularly if they have lots of stops where the metro-doors reduce dwell times, and might just be acceptable for up to an hour. Also some trains blur the line between Intercity and Regional Express (mrk2/mrk3 coaches for example would be suitable for either, depending on the locomotive used to power them). Group 3 and the branch line aspect of group 5 probably also have some overlap.

As far as ATW is concerned they are short on groups two and three, I expect First Great Western are in a similar position. If anyone needs group 5 DMUs, the best part of 60 such units (15 each of 142 and 143, and perhaps 25 of ATW's 36 class 150s) should be released by ValleyLines electrification, though we'd need some group 3 units in return.

Based on my above comments yes, we need more of the middle group(s) (2 particularly, and perhaps some 3) (there's some group five stock operating group 3 and/or group 2 services which could be released by extra group2 / group3 stock)

It is as I thought. What we a basic DMU is not what we need at the moment. 

Also I thought part of the justification for Valley Lines electrification was the need to replace the existing stock in that time-scale (DDA?)

With all due respect, I know what LOROL 172s are compatible with, and that's other Chiltern 172s, class 165s and class 168s.

They don't need to be boxed in, although I note that the same erroneous statement appears on the 172 Wikipedia article. The same Wikipedia article which had other bunkum saying the 172s had a top speed of 75mph, although I note someone has now changed this to the correct top-speed of 100mph.

Only the leading bogie of the leading unit unit needs to have a trip-cock fitted to it. It is quite feasible to have a 165+172 combination on the Met line, but of course in the return direction, the set would need to be reformed or run via Little Kimble, so not that practical.

On incompatibility the 16Xs which will be  released by TV electrification and Crossrail , possibly to the Bristol area, are not compatible with 15X et al now running in the area.

It shouldn't be too hard to fix though. They can couple mechanically just not electrically at the moment. Apparently it isn't hard to fix the electrical incompatibility problems though, and indeed as we've discussed above some 172s couple to 16x and some to 15x, it shouldn't be hard to switch between the two.

The 159s on the Exeter to Waterloo service are essentially performing a 'secondary route' service.  With their 'Salisbury reliability' they do a very good job, only handicapped by the present need to stop every 10 miles or so.  For a long journey (I do AXM to WAT or CLJ) it is a bit tedious and cramped.  The seating is just a vital 10 cms too squashed for knee room.  My wife (1.65m) has no trouble but my knees naturally splay out to hit the sides of the hollows in the seat in front (I am 1.8m).  The alternative of sitting at a table poses the risk of involuntarily playing kneesie with the OP (opposite pas not other poster).

The rolling buffet trolley is adequate for most pax, even over 2 hours.  Thus I would like to see, for the services I have in mind on the Western and Wessex lines, something similar to the SWT 159, with updated bogs and wifi.

The SWT WAT - EXD service is a jolly line but changes its nature at Basingstoke going east.  I have wondered whether such long routes could do with becoming 'fast' (i.e. non-stop) when a distance (60 miles?) from the smoke.  Thus my hope for two tier services.  It is starting to go that way with the increasing interchange at Salisbury, for instance.

So a service Bristol to Weymouth or same to Pompey should have '159 facilities', and improved as described above.  I would like to see a SWI to EXD service that would interchange neatly with the others (or merge at Westbury).

I think the possible improvements in this central Wessex area are being hampered by the separate franchises of SWT and FGW, whereby such connections across the region are being under-served.  I can also see PLY or EXD to SOT via BMH being also ignored but the demand is there, and if you, as  I have while doing pax surveys, met many pax standing bewildered at UPW (yes Upwey!!) awaiting a change to a 'Heart of Wessex' having being booked to do that by ticket office staff at BMH, then you would see that I might have a point.   :D   >:( 

DDA/RVAR has been replaced by EU directive with something called PRM-TSI, (Persons of Reduced Mobility Technical Specification for Interoperability). I thought scrapping of the 150/2s released from the ValleyLines was highly unlikely, but Pacers I thought had to go. However, this month's (March 2013) Modern Railways magazine shows artisit's impressions of a compliant Pacer, which suggests serious thought has gone into life-extending them. Also, what I thought was the key issue (internal steps) is marked as 'Compliance achieved'. Even if Pacers aren't life-extended, there's 20 odd 150/2s for the ValleyLines to casade elsewhere.

I did wonder about that when writing 'boxed in' - because as you say it only really needs a tripcock fitted unit leading a mixed pair, but then with the added hassle factor of running around at either end coming into play, I guess that's a good enough reason why it  wouldn't happen in regular service. 

However it's really an academic discussion, because I also suppose that it isn't expected by Chiltern to lead to any operational problems, else they'd have ordered the units with tripcock gear in the first place...

Paul

I believe the problem was the design of the bogies on the 172s means tripcocks can't be fitted, otherwise they presumably would have done for increased operational convenience.

LOL hear hear!

I have been watching this thread with interest and I also posted yesterday on whether we will get improvements on the heart of Wessex line (thread) where i now live nr Dorchester.
I also have for 50 years used AXM-WAT and seen how things have evolved over that time.

Of course lines such as WEY-BRSTL, Portsmouth-CDF S'ton-BRSTL EXT-Barnstaple and the slower BTM-Devon-PNZ slow services need decent trains with a class 158/159 quality...

why cannot more of these be built?
they fit the build completely and can be tweaked to comply with disabled regs.

all of our SW regional and branch lines almost without exception have become busier and busier.
Exmouth, Paignton, St Ives, Newquay Falmouth Weymouth and so on...
offer a more better frequency then the trains have historically become more crowded so we need more new trains.

it is offensive to think passengers will put up for much longer with second rate trains like a one car sprinter or a pacer 'rail bus' on 2 hour journeys or more...
have you tried PNZ to Taunton in a 2 car dirty sprinter?  mmm great :(
slower trains on the PNZ or WEY lines really need 159 type quality trains.

as someone mentioned Swindon-Padd pax for one hour get an HST but PLY-MAN or EDI pax get a 4 car voyager which takes all day.

If the old S&D from BMTH to Bath & BRS was still open now  it would be a very busy useful regional route.

My proposed cheap and simple trains need not be uncomfortable, some passengers might actualy prefer them.
I would think of an internal layout a bit like an old BR MK11 standard open.

When such coaches were recently used on scheduled services from Taunton many customers compared them favourably to modern stock. Despite no at seat power, no wifi, no buffet and no first class.
Indeed I saw a family complain that the train was "all first class" being presumably used to modern trains, they could not believe that the seats all at tables and aligned with windows could be for them !

Modern trains have become so hugely expensive that the seats have to be crammed in and other facilities withdrawn in order to try and contain the cost per seat.
There might be a case for building a longer version but I cant support regular multiple working and through gangways, too much to go wrong and to add cost and weight.

Is it a bit late to point out that Metro Cammel no longer build trains.

The Chinese to a good line in lightweight rolling stock.

So what do you use for heat if the engine has been started from cold or has been idling / coasting for some time and isn't putting much heat into the coolant then?

Single glazed windows increase condensation problems on cold wet days and have to have additional anti spall films added on the inside to prevent the window ending up on the passengers laps if rocks / stones are thrown at the train. Better off with double glazed windows with laminated glass on the inner layer.

What you actually need to do is go back to first principles and come up with a latter day version of class 150. Simple, light (by today's standards) robust no thrills reliable branch line transport. You could of course electrify the various interrurban routes and reallocate the 150's currently being used on them on rural routes. Rather than trying to build some sort of crap tram train thing for rural lines.

Ideally what you do is upgrade them with new engines and transmissions for greater fuel economy, although the current driveline certainly is reliable enough as it is.

Which will probably have rusted out before it arrives off the boat in the UK. I keep hearing people going on about these Chinese trains, no-ones ordered any yet for UK use I notice...

Which is because the trains were effectively three and a half coaches long, one coach having a brake end. Replicate that seating layout on a two coach train with a cab on the end of each coach and you'll be lucky if you have 100 seats. Still the passengers will have somewhere comfortable to stand.

For Mk2 coach think more in terms of Inverness based 158's with bays of seats round tables. You'll then catch my drift.

You could have more vehicles of course but somebody then has to stump up the leasing costs for the extra vehicles....

A newer longer version of the class 153 but a demu with pantograph, run it as a one car on little used turns, in multiple at busy times, Cardiff-pompy could run as electric to Bristol and diesel down to pompy (Southampton is getting overhead at some point and using third rail would not be impossible)

Only problem with that is (apart from all the kit you need to somehow find space for under the coach floor and the sheer weight of the thing) is the fact single cars obviously need a driving cab on each end. Therefore when you multi them up you now have loads of dead space within the train in the form of unused driving cabs. I can't see a whole string of single car EDMU's running along with their pantographs up going down too well with the OHLE people either.

It took quite a bit of doing to get 153's cleared for various South West rural routes and they are still banned beyond Southampton. and that's with 76 foot coaches. How much longer were you thinking of making them and how much less internal width do you think the passengers will accept in order to get the extra length?

Rather than single car longer 153 what about an articulated 2/3 car 20m coach train. less waste of space more seats.

The problem with articulation being one of axle loading on the intermediate bogies. Remember that whatever you build has to meet the relevant end loading and crash resistance requirements, which adds to the weight. You also loose the ability to rapidly remove cars from the set for repair while leaving the rest of the set in service. As is done with the FGW 158/9 fleet.

Latterday version of class 150 retaining the virtues of simplicity and light weight is what's required....

Irrespective of whether you want to run the trains multied up or not you require the means to do so in case you ever want to cater for greater than expected loadings. You also need the means to tow the unit dead with full brake continuity at full normal speeds with another suitable train if your train fails. Unless your going to move the train by road from its route to the depot / workshop. You won't get many pathways for low speed unbraked moves on today's railway.

The BSI couplings and electrical boxes on FGW DMU's are perfectly reliable if maintained properly and this appears to be the case with the FGW units. So I'm not sure quite why your not supporting the ability to multi the trains together.

But there are class 150s running around on regional express (and close to that) services. What is needed is more regional express units, basicly class 158s, as fuel-efficent and cheap-to-run as possible. No more class 150 surburban 'middly doors' creating dead space within the train on regional express services, and it'd release those 150s for use on shorter journeys.

Problem is no-one has defined what sort of secondary services these notional new trains are for. If your using them on things like Devon Metro local services end doors is the last thing you want. Slows the boarding / alighting times down big style. Wherever you have doors, your not going to have seats, please define 'Dead Space'. My definition is space within the body used for equipment that should be below solebar level. Such as the equipment rack behind the emergency equipment cupboard next to the toilet on class 153.

One car units are less than ideal, but nevertheless probably the right solution, except in this case, to the wrong problem... Bear in mind as was mentioned earlier in the thread, The new train would need to be DDA compliant so obviously 1 car units aren't going to help much.

I still think Loco Hauled is a good solution even for branch lines. Just add/remove coaches when you need them. Have a generic carriage with the following:

• Interchangeable between First and Standard Class in a similar method to Aircraft
• Galley for potential trolley stowage with Microwave and Urn for light meals/hot drinks
• Power Sockets at seats
• Option for WiFi to be fitted. But perhaps use Cell Repeaters instead for transit of all major UK Cell Networks
• 1 Standard toilet per coach with luggage rack at the alternate end
• 1 Service Vehicle in every loco hauled set which contains the Galley, Cycle Storage, Guards Compartment and DDA Compliant Toilet. Also perhaps a Drivers Cab in the vehicle for quick turn around (Similar to a DBSO)

The running cost of loco-haulage on branch lines would be prohibitive. Track access charges for a loco are several times higher, and the hire costs would also be (particularly if relatively modern locos were used).  I think Chiltern have done the maths and for main line running reckon that you need to get to about 6 coaches before a loco hauled set becomes economic.

The question that I'm always left wondering when I read about higher track access charges is "does a locomotive an coaches really cost Network Rail several times more to carry than a train with the locomotion built in to the coaches?".   In other words, are these much higher charges based on proportionately higher costs to support such trains, or for some market or political reason?   I would suspect a bit of both - does anyone know the sums?

I don't know what drives the variable track access charges payable to Network Rail by train operators, but they are regulated, and published here http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/regulatory%20documents/access%20charges%20reviews/cp4%20charges/b%20-%20track%20usage%20price%20list%20for%20cp4.pdf (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/regulatory%20documents/access%20charges%20reviews/cp4%20charges/b%20-%20track%20usage%20price%20list%20for%20cp4.pdf).
Taking a quick look, it would appear that charges for multiple unit vehicles are similar, or slightly higher than those for hauled coaches. The charges for  locomotives, however, are significantly higher.

It's done to reflect weight and track wear I thought?

Indeed. Locos being heavier mean that they really punish the track.

Apart from the fact locos cost more to run, there are a whole host of speed restrictions that apply to them that do not apply to multiple unit trains.

The point, surely, is not that locos have a variable track access charge several times that of a DMU coach, but that it would take very few additional passengers to cover the additional cost.

But would it?

Preparing a locomotive for service takes quite a bit of time. Mobilisation of a locomotive train takes longer than a multiple unit, so you'd need longer turn around times.

Where there are differential speed limits, loco hauled trains have to obey the slower speed limit. They have slower acceleration. So pathing and performance now becomes a potential cost issue. Fuel efficiency is an issue too.

It is not as simple as saying that (for example) a loco hauled four car train has twice the number of seats as a two car multiple unit therefore it would be twice as cost effective, because that is not the case. If you have a two car train that is full and standing and give all the standing passengers a seat, you haven't sold any more tickets. But you have to sell a lot more tickets to make it worth while.

And that is why the TOCs (and even BR) are/were avoiding loco hauled trains if they can help it.

To be really honest with you.... And I don't like saying this but one way of saving money and improving line capacity at a lower cost as well as providing traffic conjestion would be conversion to tram.... The Exmouth branch is a prime example

Spot on (as ever!) ... I've done some sample sums

The cost of running a loco is about 40p per mile, a coach about 6p per mile, and a DVT 11p per mile. So loco + 3 coaches + trailer = 69p / mile

A 3 car 150 is 5p per carriage per mile = 15p / mile

Looks bad, until

A peak return from Melksham to Oxford (example from this week) is 96 pounds for 60 miles each way.   That's 80p per mile.  So track access charges for a three coach, rather nice train that will potentially be far more attractive than a 150 are paid for by a single passenger.  There may be a big difference in the prices charged, but it looks to me as if that's actually a pretty small compoent.

Thanks for the various other feedbacks on the differential.  I appreciate that a locomotive puts more wear onto the track - but how much more? Is it really 8 times more, are are pricing politics and "what the market will take" at work here, distorting the technical picture?

You've also got to take into consideration the cost of leasing the stock concerned, and the relative fuel costs.

The example you give regarding ticket prices is probably atypical of the branch lines that Trout was suggesting loco+coaches would be used for, and which triggered the debate. I would suggest that having a loco+coaches tootling up and down the Exmouth line (or any of the others) would require a vast increase in passengers to pay for the additional lease/hire costs.

Also on branch lines the loco and or DVT would reduce the space available at the termini so would probably need platform extensions.

Yes, I agree ... I'm looking to getting an understanding of the various elements.   And I'm beginning to see why the GoCo proposals make sense whether they're loco + coaches or DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit), in contrast to other lines / services where it could make a big difference.

Ah. I think I was referring to secondary routes rather than Branch line stock. Should have clarified.

However a further idea which has just come up in my brain. This may not be a well received suggestion for Long Distance Passengers and is only theoretical. But why not extend some if the Paddington bound services onto the branches aka Newquay during the summer. You could run an hourly HST to Avonmouth and back to Paddington. Thus freeing up a 150 (Example). For the same route you could run a PAD - Cardiff/Swansea service via that line calling at SVB Line stations as an alternate route?

Could the same be done for Gunnislake and Okehampton branches?

I've also thought about running a HST (Possibly 5 car set)  from Paddington to Weymouth non stop to Bristol Parkway and Bristol Temple Meads. Then take the path of say the 17:49 which can be a very cosy service down the Trowbridge line! Of course that would assume a set which didn't have any LSL (Long Swing Link) Bogies in the consist...

increases capacity on an already busy service with a comfortable train. Whilst elliviating overcrowding for passengers travelling just to Bristol by having a dedicated Fast service. But also for Bath Spa & Chippenham passengers who have more seats on existing Bristol Trains. And the best bit. You've done 2 diagrams with 1 set :)

If you run an HST on branch lines generally they'll be slower than the DMUs usually used so you'd require a drop in frequency on the Gunnislake or Severn Beach lines to accommodate running HSTs. The loadings wouldn't justify the use of an HST anyway. When FGW are short of DMUs at the weekend they usually put an HST on either Taunton-Cardiff or Plymouth-Penzance services as the HSTs don't lose much time over the route, and there are available drivers and guards who sign the route and traction.

I think these are rather far-fetched, if I've interpreted you correctly.

Extending London - Bristol services to Avonmouth. Needs an extra 2 HST diagrams - services much slower on the Avonmouth line due to selective door opening, only 2 doors per coach meaning longer dwell times, and the need to ensure all the doors are shut at each station.

Routing London to Swansea services via Avonmouth (I think that's what you were suggesting?)  Similar problems to above and would add about 90 minutes to South Wales journey times.

London to Weymouth via Bristol.  Again, same problems with dwell times and needs an extra HST in the peak usage period.

Why would you use an HST on local lines for which they are wholly inappropriate?  The only reason Newquay gets one is because of the particular need for a through service from London, the volume, and the fact that luggage is a key factor on that route.