Great Western Coffee Shop

The purpose of this message is to call your attention to rumours that the Department For Transport plan to:
^   cancel the electrification between Bristol Parkway and Swansea and
^   cancel the new electric trains planned for the Great Western
Instead, they plan to order a fleet of bi-mode trains (diesel multiple units with the ability to run off the overhead wires on electrified sections). I hope you will join me in protesting to the transport secretary against these plans. I enclose my own protest letter should you wish to use or adapt it. I hope you are interested in supporting this protest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish to register my protest against the planed adoption of bi-mode multiple units for INTERCITY services. Some of the advantages of electrification are:
1.   reduced weight of rolling stock, resulting in:

• improved performance
• lower greenhouse gas emissions

2.   no emissions at point of use
3.   lower maintenance requirements / greater reliability
4.   lower noise levels

Adopting the bi-mode plan would sacrifice advantages 1 and 3 and would restrict advantages 2 and 4 to electrified sections. Enhancing the environmental advantage of rail should be the top priority in designing new trains. On these grounds I protest against the plan and suggest instead greater electrification, covering all the main INTERCITY destinations such as Swansea with places beyond this reached by hauling the trains with diesel locomotives. This would remove the internal noise from under-floor diesel engines.

Consideration should also be given to planned length of the stock. The plans are apparently for 26m stock, which I am told would be out of loading gauge on many of the routes the current 23m stock can serve. This would mean, for example, that the popular summer Saturday tourist trains to Tenby and Pembroke Dock would have to cease.

I think you're wrong about cancelling West of Parkway.

Isn't it jumping the gun slightly to start firing off letters of complaint based solely on rumours, before anything has actually been formally announced?

I doubt you'll have too long to wait, either.....

Let's just hope it's not the unspeakably depressing dog's breakfast that is postulated elsewhere (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5066.msg85991#msg85991)!

Let's hope not!

Pretty much what I heard, except the EMU and DMU versions will not be ordered and instead the whole fleet would be bi-mode.


Well, that's what I heard elsewhere, (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=41138) though in later posts it does look like it might extend to Cardiff.


Well, I called it a rumour, since I don't entirely trust the source. The reply the DaFT sent me did nothing to claim otherwise, so I think it's more than just a rumour now.

Can you publish here their response please?

Can anyone explain why D(a)FT are fixated with Multiunits.

For IC services with an off wire destination loco hauled push pull is by far the cheapest option. Even if you factor in buying a handful of diesel locos for the off wire part. 10 non powered coaches plus 5Mw electric loco is considerable cheaper per train than a 10 coach bi-mode .    

Loco changes ought to be under 5 minutes so not a problem at places like Plymouth, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Carnforth, Leeds etc.

Because it gives them an excuse to lengthen the Meridians which is something that needs doing anyway on capacity grounds,  but the business case looks better if it is worked up into an electrification project?   Just a guess?

Tim interesting thought but i don't think they are that clever, and there's a hint in this month's Modern Railways that the Meridians may not be made bi-mode.

Has anyone considered the possibility that these new trains might actually be quite nice?

Apparently not. It's a relentless stream of "everything was better in the 1960s" pessimism. See also main thread on GWML electrification in "Across the West". Never mind that I doubt anyone has done anything about an interior specification yet, there's no possibility that they'll be anything other than awful because they won't be loco-hauled.   ::):P

Of course they won't be nice, even if the solution is loco hauled as I think it should be, it is current practice that new trains have rock-hard airline seating with insufficent legroom. No, my campaign is for the enviromentally friendly option over reducing rail's green advantages.

Anyway, here's the reply I recived:

It is interesting to note that he mentions TOCs having to source the rolling stock for some services separately, which is contradictary to the idea of ordering a single uniform fleet of bi-mode stock, even for totally wired routes, to reduce costs.

Exactly my opinion, though I think existing diesel locos (eg. 57s, 47s and 37s) could be used and frequent services (at least hourly, and possibly up to 2-hourly) would be easier with an EMU dragged by a diesel. Swansea should be wired up, making that the loco-swap point not Cardiff. I think you might get away with a new EMU fleet on most routes, maybe dragged off wire by diesels in a few cases, and using the existing INTERCITY 225 fleet on Carmarthen/Pembroke/Aberdeen/Inverness (and similar) services with the loco swapping for a diesel at Swansea and Edingbourgh.

Oh the wonderfully Mk1's with their friction dampers that were totally useless the lack of yaw dampers, lights that dimmed and went out if the train stopped for more than 5 minuets, drafty windows with dripping condensation.  The upside was the free sauna from the steam heating, when it worked. yes they were the best ever trains .......  ???

What do you mean 'Of course...'? The things haven't been built yet. How can you possibly know? If you are using a crystal ball then please fire it up and let us know next weeks lottery numbers.


Not forgetting the seating on both MkI's and MkIIs. So soft it could almost swallow a small child whole! And softer seating is not necessarily a good thing if you have back problems. I have absolutely no problems after sitting in a current refurbed FGW MkIII for 3 hours. Yes, the seat backs are maybe a little high, but there is nothing wrong with the pitch or the ergonomics.

Nope. I don't get it either. But the cranks love them because their unevenly sprung seats are "comfortable", there's "plenty of legroom" (unless someone's sitting opposite you) and all seats are arranged roune tables. I suppose the draughtiness, basic toilet facilities and ineffective heating all help to contribute to some misled sense of "nostalgia".

Couldn't this equate to the TOCs sourcing the locos to haul away from wires?......

Oh! What joy this thread would bring to some of DfT's rail people, should they ever stumble upon it. They got the FGW toastrack HST right!

Well, if you choose to call me a nostalgic eccentric that's your privilege. However I will still prefer to travel on SWT's 159s to Waterloo when making business journeys to London.

As for taking the family out to the far south west...I've often been tempted by the idea, but with the trains on offer...no thanks!

And I too am happy to occasionally take a SWT 159 to Waterloo from Bristol. Price usually determines that choice, a cheaper route but longer journey time.

But, compared to FGW MkIIIs I find the SWT 159 seating too soft and too low.

You might not share it but at the very least it's a valid point of view. I tend to agree with BNM, a lot of the hyperbole from the Mark I Appreciation Society complaining about the FGW HST doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Just for the record though, I'm probably better acquainted with mark I stock than most, and I do have a fondness for it; I'm a guard on a heritage line who works with mark Is. They're good vehicles, and were a real leap forward in terms of passengers facilities/comfort when introduced in the 1950s. But that was 60 years ago. They're ideal for pottering around on heritage lines at 25 mph but have no place on the main line these days. Much the same could be said for the earlier generations of mark II.

Getting back to the point, however, the crux of this thread is less to do with the arguments about FGW's HST refurbishment (rehearsed ad nauseam on this forum and in many other places too) than the ridiculously pessimistic attitude of many posters that "the IEP trains will be crap, uncomfortable and have no space for luggage" before the details of the project have been announced, let alone any interior specifications published.

i think the problem is because we've had the Voyagers and Mark 3 toastracks and the general pack them all in one coach philosophy that we expect the same with the IEP.

I agree the Mark 1s are past their sell by date but Mark 2e and original Mark 3 should be the minimum benchmark for the IEP.

The IEP spec published way back when has quite a bit of detail on the interior requirements.  It certainly includes exact dimensions for legroom, ratios of airline and table seating, first and standard, luggage dimensions etc, etc

Have a look at section 6 of this, especially the table at section 6.4.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/ieptraintechnicalspecifi.pdf (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/ieptraintechnicalspecifi.pdf)

So I think it's wrong to say there is no information about, although I can't guarantee that Hitachi won't have just copied a Voyager anyway...

Paul

 

In which case Table 2 on page 47, specifying seat pitches as well as ratios of bay to unidirectional seating, ought to put certain minds at rest.

That's the same table, guys!

Table 2 is in section 6.4 which is on page 47....

Mea culpa - didn't spot that!

So I guess this campaign/petition has been binned now that it's clear it isn't a completely bi-mode fleet, and they are wiring to Cardiff and on both routes to Bristol.

What I find quite remarkable is how, across a fairly wide range of forums, people were so keen to take the Paul Clifton (of BBC South) specualtion a few weeks ago as 100% fact...

Paul

No, my campaign is not binned. Without electrification to Swansea the bi-mode disaster is still happening (unless they are going to put locos on at Cardiff, which from the BBC report I've read isn't what they announced). As my letter said going down the bi-mode route bins several of the advantages of electrification, including the most important, greenhouse gas emmisions.

I need suggstions on where to go from here, is it worth carrying on at the DfT or should I direct my efforts towards the Welsh Assembly (who might also be able to provide for some local (ValleyLines) services to switch to electric traction)?

Sorry, I'm a little confused here. What do you want to see with regard to the wires and rolling stock? Even if the wires did reach Swansea there would still be a need for some form of Inter-City diesel traction in other parts of the Greater Western franchise area, be it bi-mode, power car, or loco hook up.

I'd like to see the whole GW area under the knitting, but that is just not feasible financially. What I don't want to see is passengers having to change where the wires end or journey times needlessly extended by hooking up a loco to an electric set. A seamless switch to onboard diesel powered traction would appear to be the best compromise.

And whats the difference in emissions from a loco and emissions from the diesel part of bi-mode? I don't get your camaign either.

The TOC's will not want the complexity of attaching / detaching locomotives along with the increased costs of stabling sidings etc.  Another plus of the bimode in the event of a OHLE power failure or say sort notice divert where there are no wires the train will still work.

If I've understood it correctly, the argument runs that bi-mode is inferior to electric because the whole time the train is running on the juice it's carting round the weight of the diesel power plant as well, thereby increasing its energy consumption and making it less "green". This would result in either decreased performance or increased electricity consumption, or maybe a combination of the two.

That said however it's not necessarily an argument that I agree with, nor do I think there's any chance of getting anyone in a decision-making position to listen. Putting aside the supposed environmental benefits or disbenefits, the logistics of loco haulage must be a barrier. In scenario one you're attaching/detaching locos at Cardiff Central, which I suspect would be tricky because of the volume of traffic using the station, and also provides a significant performance risk if the loco doesn't want to talk to the train. Alternatively, you're dragging around the dead weight of the loco unpowered for most of the journey to Swansea then firing it up at Cardiff, which immediately negates any benefit of a purely electric IEP.

The government was never going to announce the mass electrification of all remaining Intercity routes today. A purely electric IEP only makes sense against that background.

Exactly, that is the main reason I'm dead against it, though modal-shift to car from tourists loosing the direct Pembroke Dock service due to 26m coaches is another issue. The number of complaints I've heard on forums about vibration/noise from the underfloor diesel engines on Voyagers, 180s etc. is also a (minor) contributing factor.

Here I disagree in places. I do agree on the impracticality of adding a loco (or swaping the one on a push-pull LHCS train) to an hourly service at Cardiff, that is why electrification must continue to Swansea. There you could swap an electric loco for a diesel (in about 5-7 mins some say) for the far less frequent CMN and PMD services without much hassel. Swansea depot could perhaps take the AC locos in for light maintenance while the train is out west behind the diesel. With the number of services requiring the diesel locos so much lower, you would no longer need to have a new build and could use existing 57s, 47s etc.

A purely electric IEP does make sence without full electrification everywhere, as you don't need a standard fleet across all IC routes. One idea I've had is to only order all-electric IEPs, for both GWML and ECML, and split the IC225 fleet between ECML and GWML to do the trips that go beyond the wires. Routes with only a reletivly small section under the wires (such as the ones to Taunton and beyond) can stick with IC125s (they are more ecconomical than recent 125mph DMUs) until the wires are extended far enough out that the frequency is managable for loco-swaps.

If Cardiff - Swansea and the severn tunnel diversionary route via Cheltenham are added to the electrifcation you take care of most non-Taunton IC125 services. You could also make the Swanline stopping service hourly and extend it to Cheltenham in place of the Maesteg service, and hay presto you have 2 electrics per hour between Swansea and Cardiff. Wire Maesteg and Ebbw Vale too (make WAG pay for them, 15 class 377s and Severn Tunnel Juction - Cheltenham) and that's 3 electric tph between Bridgend and Cardiff (and less than 2 desiel tph).

The through services to beyond Oxford, mostly being 165/166s, could probably be cut back (by requiring a change at Oxford, except on the IC services) to allow a loco swap or EMU drag on the remaining services, the ones currently using IC125s (I guess that's mainly the Hereford services).

That'd be the famously reliable 47s and 57s would it? Being 50 years old (or newer if you apply the 'Trigger's broom' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbha4XclSMU) logic!!!) by the time the new IEP trains are running.

Spare us the guesswork. If your approach was adopted, you would kill the nearly 20 years of growing traffic on the Cotswold Line at one fell swoop - and completely waste the investment in redoubling. That growth has been built on the back of through trains to and from Reading and London, which now constitute almost the entire service on the route, whatever type of train is working them. Rather more important and lucrative than the odd train west of Swansea. If the Valleys lines are electrified, then Swansea and Maesteg will surely follow sooner, rather than later, but just doing the main line west of Cardiff on its own makes no sense, operationally or financially - even if it is a nice idea.

If bi-mode is what's needed to retain the Cotswold Line's through trains, then so be it - we already have under-floor dmus anyway and would welcome back 180s should they return, so what is the problem? For passengers here, having a comfortable train, with an interior layout suitable for long-distance services, is the priority, not whether there's a diesel engine or a transformer under the floor, and outside the peaks, peak shoulders and the busiest weekend trains, something the size of an HST is not needed.

As for diesel locos, I well remember all the time that was taken at Wolverhampton attaching/detaching diesels and electric locos on Shrewsbury services in the 1980s (10 minutes was allowed for this) and wouldn't want to see that kind of carry-on return, never mind that Oxford station's layout is utterly unsuitable for it - and it's a lousy place to change trains as well.

I thought you might have something to say about that post, Will  ;)


And I agree with you, though did you actually mean that the Sunday afternoon/early evening up services don't need to have at least the capacity of a current HST in Standard Class - because they surely do - unless Oxford to Paddington goes half-hourly on a Sunday?  Or were you meaning that a 5-car Bi-Mode IEP would do the trick as long as it coupled to another 5-car IEP for the Oxford to London section?

With regard to the Swansea electrification, it's an awkward situation.  Sure, off-peak services do only run hourly between Cardiff and Swansea, but that could be described as a little misleading because of the days services during the week, a total of 21 trains run from Swansea to Paddington (one of which originates at Carmarthen) and only 9 run just from Cardiff to London - so that's well under half.  So I don't think it's quite such a cut-and-dried argument - if you're going to go to 171 miles to Cardiff for 30 trains a day, you could argue you might as well go the extra mile (or 44) for 21 trains to Swansea!

Labour thought so, under Adonis.  The WAG think so, Hammond is quoted as saying that they will keep it under 'active review' and we're a few years away from where any definite decision on number of types of IEP need to be decided.  Perhaps there might be a change of heart still, as 'Timmer' suggested?

There might well be, if WAG stick their hands in their pockets!

Hammond's statement has impeccable logic as a Plan. It electrifies the core but saves 45 route miles of wiring by introducing a novel ED IEP that will allow part-electric working across both the WR and ER (showing my age), enabling through services to be maintained to many peripheral destinations. It also directs wiring money to where most people would benefit; the Valleys' Routes.

My problem is that such plans are made by people with clean finger nails, never having had engine oil under them, or having had to study at University subjects like Thermodynamics or Tribology. Rightly is the option of engine changing doubted but can an outfit that is unable to diagram, maintain, and operate such a simple railway procedure, as practised by the SR at Bournemouth, really be capable of coping with the novel and unproven ED IEP concept?

Believe me, I hope it all works and Hitachi are probably the ones most likely to do it. But we know the many limits of even modern diesel traction. I also think they are unsafe as fire risks, both in service and in accidents. Perhaps we should set peripheral wiring costs as a safety issue like TPWS.

Two minor points:

The deep sprung Mark 1 carriage seats were considered as secondary suspension; a worn, hunting BR1 cart sprung bogie at 60/90 mph needed it. The wonderful (IMHO) CIG's (Class 421), could have harder seating because of the much improved B5 and Mark 6 motor bogies (why were they cut up?).

The European car length of 26.4m (such as the 1970's Corail stock) would be even better than the Mark 3's 23m if it could fit. However, such common clearances and axle loadings are beyond the rainbow's end.

OTC

I thought busiest weekend services was clear enough. The weekend trains that currently have HSTs certainly need to retain that kind of seating capacity. However, there are chunks of weekdays and weekends - Saturday afternoons west of Moreton-in-Marsh being one instance - where you need something smaller, so in such cases the ability to divide and couple at Oxford would be handy - and far preferable to changing trains or messing about with diesel locos.

I don't dispute electrifying to Swansea would be nice but I suspect that it has been studied to death in recent months and the numbers just don't stack up - you need to bring all sorts of services other than GWML expresses into the picture to make the maths work, and that means South Wales local services - which are WAG's baby - and freight, not least steel industry services from Margam and oil from the Milford Haven area, but in the absence of electrified routes to the West Midlands and North Wales, they are going to stick with diesel power. Get Valleys electrification worked up and XC wiring between Birmingham and Bristol, which freight could piggy-back on, and you should be able to make it work.


What's novel and unproven about it? SNCF has dozens of bi-mode regional trains built by Bombardier in service across France, precisely to operate routes that are part under the wires and part off them. And some of are bi-current to boot, able to work off either 25kv or 1500v DC under the wires.

The 5 car bi-mode MU concept brings the possibility of some out of the box train planing. It would be possible for example to run more frequent IC 5 car trains from West Wales and couple / split them at Cardiff and run as a 10 to London.

And along the Cotwswold line & join @ Oxford - and up from PNZ to join @ PLY.

My mistake - I misread your original post.


Though it'll be an interesting design challenge to squeeze all the equipment on board.  Those SNCF units you refer to have most of the electrical equipment roof mounted and have the luxury of a gauge allowing them to be well over a foot higher.  Also of course those units are used on lower speed services, and whilst their maximum diesel speed of just under 90mph would probably be sufficient for a Bi-Mode IEP, there will be a number of challenges involved in ramping the electric powered top speed up to 125mph (and ideally 140mph).  Does anyone know what design speed a Bi-Mode IEP is specified for in diesel mode?

The spec is on the dfT website somewhere

Yes: it's here (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/ieptraintechnicalspecifi.pdf), I think.  ;)

Thanks, CfN.  125mph diesel and at least 125mph electric then.  I can't help but think the 125mph diesel element should be reviewed in the light of electrification of the GWML.  After all, there'll be precious little non-electrified track on the GWML (or anywhere else the IEP will operate) with speeds of over 100mph, so I'd have thought it would be better all round to gear it to a 100mph top speed or 110mph at most.  We'll see what the boffins can come up with though!

What's the top speed of the 319s?.....If they want these to use the fast lines, that'll be the defining factor.

I agree.  Why waste money on a 125 top speed when the line speed doesn't match.   the electric top speed is interesting though.  can be extended to 140 with some minor modifcation.  I wonder if that will take place after ERTM has been installed?

100 AFAIK. Although obviously that's only an issue in areas like the Thames Valley where they are likely to share track with the new trains. Better than the Turbos' top speed of 90 at least. I don't know how the two compare in acceleration but I would guess that the 319s have the edge given that they're electric.

Yes, by quite a margin.

But keeping the diesel element at 125mph will at least allow schedules to be maintained when the knitting falls down or there is a supply failure.

How often would that actually happen on 125mph stretch though?  Better in my opinion to have a train with a slower top speed and better acceleration for those variable speed limits between Cardiff and Swansea and the Cotswold Line.  However, a question for those with more technical knowledge than me - would a Bi-Mode train with such a variable speed limit be able to be geared for a 100mph top speed in diesel mode without compromising the performance with a 125-140mph top speed in an electrically powered mode?

And it still wouldn't enable the schedules to be maintained as these 125mph electric trains are apparently going to chop 22 minutes off the present diesel 125mph trains schedules between Bristol and London.  Though whether that will be achieved with the same station stops as current trains remains very doubtful in my opinion!

Not sure if a full 22 mins will be achieved but HST are very slow off the mark they really don't find there legs until about 60 mph also the slam door make for longer station times if the 1/3 2/3 door option and not end of coach is selected then boarding times should be quicker

I'm 100% for a loco and coaches train against multiple unit operation any day.

Be it like HST's with Loco at both ends, maybe a loco could be Diesel & Electric powered, but for ride comfort who want's engines hammering away under your feet!

Something that seem's to be totally overlooked with Diesel units is this.

Say a timetable calls for 12 train units in service then a fleet of
16 Multiple units is required to cover Breakdowns and Planed Maintenance.

However have Loco & Coaches you still need 16 loco's but only 14 coaching sets, as coaches require FAR LESS maintenance than Locos or Multiple Units.

From what Matthew Golton said yesterday, this campaign will go nowhere now.

The original technical specifications available here (http://www.agilitytrains.com/assets/pdf/AT-090205-Key_Facts-Released-1_5.pdf) show no difference in acceleration whatever method of power, and distribution of that power, was used. I'd imagine that the change in specification for the bi-mode to underfloor diesels will not adversely affect that stated acceleration of 0.75 m/s/s (metres per second, squared).

Ok, I'll hold my hands up and admit that I don't have the local knowlage etc. to know for sure where you can get away with reducing the number of through services (NOTE: I mean reduce, not remove) or where you can swap locos easily. Since swapping one loco for another wouldn't work, would Oxford's station layout allow for an EMU drag means of operation instead, perhaps with the wires extending a short distance beyond the station and slipping the diesel off in-motion on approach to the station?

Nope, that wouldn't be possible. In this case it is not the bi-mode but the 26m issue, which apparently would prevent the IEP trains running into West Wales. willC complained that reducing through services to Paddington in one neck of the woods would be a bad idea, but 26m coaches would, after IC125 expiry, make any and all through services to West Wales completly impossible (except for using my IC225 loco-swap plan). You are all completly within your rights to try to protect your patch by objecting to service reductions and I'm completly within my rights to protect mine, and the enviromental advantages of rail, by campaigning against a 26m bi-mode IEP.

I hope we can discuss this together and arrive at a workable solution which retains a very good level of service to all the areas concerned while minimising the enviromental impacts.

I'd be interested to know this too. Perhaps if bi-mode really is the only option for Worcester (and beyond) trains, gearing the units to run on diesel at 100mph and electric at 140mph, if it's possible, might fix some of the enviromental concerns. Building on this, and going from a suggestion elsewhere that 1/3 and 2/3 doors might be better on this route, a bi-mode version of the Javelins (designed so all the diesel equipment can be removed to cut the weight down to that of an equivelent EMU) could be ordered just for this route, with true INTERCITY (end vestible door) EMU stock ordered for the PAD - Bristol Temple Meads/Cheltenham and ECML routes and the IC225s put on the PAD - Swansea/West Wales workings (as their 23m coaches might just squeese into West Wales).

What did he say?

Either:

• All the claims electrics accelerate faster than diesels are lies or
• The electric IEPs are being severly constrained to let the diesels keep up and the 20 odd mins journey time savings are lies or
• The IEPs on diesel mode would have a crasy amount of horsepower and therefore will drink fuel like there's no tomorrow, making my point about them being an enviromentaly desasturous desision take on an even greater magnitude (I think Voyager fuel consumpsion figures are bad, this could be much worse). If you can gear the diesel for 100mph without impacting on the electric mode, you might get the acceleration with a more reasonable fuel consupsion.

Where's the pinch-point beyond Swansea that you think would prevent a 26m vehicle working to west Wales, and if you don't mind me asking what's your source for that?

My honest opinion (and this is from someone who travels to and from west Wales regularly, since my parents' nearest station is Whitland) is that the loss of the summer Saturday HSTs to Pembroke Dock wouldn't be a huge issue - the times I've used them they are pretty lightly loaded beyond Swansea, and particularly so beyond Carmarthen, and frankly an HST is extremely ill-suited to that sort of rural branch line with frequent stops and short platforms. It really doesn't make sense in my view to design the entire IEP around maintaining that sort of vestigial service that must only run about 30 times a year, and to which there must be an alternative solution.

If a 26m car length would also prevent the daily HSTs to Carmarthen then that could be a bigger issue, especially since the weekday 0730 CMN-PAD service gets pretty busy with people travelling to work in Swansea. Having said that, the 1745 PAD-CMN is carrying plenty of fresh air after Cardiff and all but deserted once it's left Swansea.

I think we had a thread a while back about the loadings on Summer Saturday Only services to Newquay.   We're a long way away from Summer Saturdays being the busiest day of the week, with long queues waiting at Paddington for all-reserved trains to Newquay, Kingswear, Minehead and other destinations, with trains from Manchester, Leeds, Wolverhampton and other cities in the Midlands and North weaving in to make their weekly appearances in Weymouth, Paignton, Eastbourne and Margate.    Are we, indeed, at the point where the standard service that runs Monday to Saturday though the rest of the year would be more appropriate for the extreme branches than one which actually reduced the number of trains / stops at some stations as a slowly accelerating HST creeps through?

The picture isn't totally one of loss of routes.  I note the new Bristol to Paddington service via Trowbridge that's due to start ... has to be an HST ... and wonder if that's just for a few years, or whether an IEP bimode unit will be used?  Clearance wise, could there be a problem at Dundas or Avoncliff, as there is said to be with 165 / 166 units?   How about the platforms at Trowbridge, which will need to allow IEPs through if the route via Chippenham and Westbury continues to be used as a diversionary route when the Berks and Hants isn't available.

He indicated that this contract was to be let well before Xmas, if delivery is to be in 2016. THat doesn't give you long to generate a head of steam of support for your campaign. I have yet to see anyone agree with you here, nor you post in more influential fora or magazines, nor anyone else post / write elsewhere with your wishes as a subject.

You've left this far too late - why on earth weren't you campaigning when the last Government initially suggested electrification on this route?

Bear in mind that HMG will not welcome any suggestion that increases the cost of this project - we are in hard times - so no chance of stock with differing specs (save electric or bi-mode).

Good luck & I look forward to seeing your letters (written with knowledge of this network, not just your local area) appear in the rail magazines & national press.

The main problem I foresee is that patronage of the railways is on the up, not static, and it seems that HMG aren't ordering sufficient number of coaches / trains. I foresee very rapid overcrowding....

Surely that figure is pretty irrelevant though?  The entire acceleration envelope is what matters, not a maximum acceleration figure, which for all we know could be the figure from 0-10mph.

I agree, a much more important issue is that the new trains will be too short and too cramped. 

Why would they be cramped?

We don't yet know the service pattern and how the Super Expresses will be diagrammed so it's a bit early to be complaining that they are too short.

You admit you don't have local knowledge, yet plough on regardless. We used to have far fewer through trains. That ended in the early 1990s, since when, on the back of almost everything running to and from London (FGW timetable 19 if you care to check), passenger numbers on the Cotswold Line have soared. Start messing around with that provision and you will achieve the reverse effect - very quickly. The Chiltern line is a short drive for many people hereabouts. As for uncoupling locos on the move, don't make me laugh. Sometimes it's hard enough to get Turbos to unstick standing in a station.

Has it ever occurred to you that if the trains to West Wales are that important then someone might be looking at sorting out the clearance issues, if they do exist? Which would probably be rather cheaper than going back to the drawing board for the IEP for the umpteenth time for the sake of a few summer Saturday trains to Tenby and Pembroke.


Given that the maximum line speed west of Oxford is 100mph, that is quite enough speed for diesel power. As for those suggestions elsewhere, end doors will do fine thanks - just so long as they have power doors to avoid all the time lost checking  HST doors at present - this is rural England, not inner-suburban London. It gets a bit tedious in the depths of winter having all the heat sucked out of a Turbo every five minutes when the doors are opened at the next stop.

IIUIC, we know that the bi-modes will be 5 cars and the electrics will be 8 cars.  They will be 26m long not 23m as at present although the space available for passengers will be less in the two vehicles with driving cabs.  So we might get 100 or so extra seats from bristol to London via Bath.  This is a kind of capacity level that will be eaten up by growth between 2016/2017 when the new trains are in service.  Shorter journey times will also add to growth.

It might be premature to start moaning, but do you fancy betting that there will be overcrowding by 2020?  Fiver says that there will be.     

Whilst some adjustments might be sensible, cutting back the number of through trains wouldn't make sense.  The trains are often busiest in the didcot-London leg.  If you cut the trains going to London it would not just be the cotswolds that would suffer.  You would also get problems at Reading and Didcot.  Traffic from those points has also soared.

11000 extra seats per day out of Paddington from the get go. With a modular fleet of trains that will allow extra coaches to be built should demand so require.

If Bristol to London via Bath is to stay at 2tph with 8 car Super Expresses then, taking the figure for a 10 car electric (649 seats) and  removing two carriages worth of seating (a conservative estimate of 150 - probably near 130) leaves us with a seating capacity of around 500 per train. Compared with the current 2+8 HST figure of 469.

So thats an extra 30 seats per train on 35 services a day (one way - based on current M-F timetable). 1050 extra seats per day on Bristol - Paddington via Bath alone.

I suspect the seating capacity of an 8 car electric Super Express will actually be nearer 520. So, possibly nearer an extra 1500 seats per day from Bristol/Bath to Paddington.

I'll take the bet that there won't be overcrowding on this route by 2020. Even between Reading and Paddington!

Don't forget the proposal is for 5 tph between Bristol and London compared with the current 4, so even if the capacity of each train is the same that is a 25% uplift.

Thats just bristol. Cardiff seems to get one 8car electric terminator plus one 10 car (5 to Swansea) bi-mode. Will 5car Swanseas be enough?

5 carriages between Swansea & Cardiff should be enough apart from when there are major events on in cardiff or swansea.

You're on.  [handshake]


Edited to fix quote. bignosemac

[handshake returned]

Now we just need an independent arbiter to decide what constitutes overcrowding 9 years hence.  ;) :D ;D

Served and witnessed. I'll PM you with my address and will guarantee that whoever sends the biggest bribe will win the bet ;)

Dollars or Sterling, blakey?  :P ;) ;D

So, magazines would be a good avenue to contact, thanks for the advice. Have you (or anyone reading this) any more useful suggestions? Also, some do agree with me. There are some users on RailUK Fourms who support my views, and, admittedly, others who support the bi-mode Multiple Unit side of the argument. Here is a topic discussing the issue over there,  (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=41138)and another. (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=42252) There's even a supporter of my views here in this thread:
I would of course object to having diesel and electric in the same loco in most cases, but again it might just be acceptable for the Hereford/Worcester route if you can't attach a loco for an EMU drag.

The last government's proposals were more sencible in most respects, they were to electrify to Swansea which would have reduced numbers of bi-modes. They did have flaws in their plans, like wanting to replace IC225s (which I did write a complaint about) and ordering new diesels/bi-mode for the Taunton (and beyond) trains rather than sticking with IC125s. Also I've only recently, since the WAG's TrawsCambria consultation, really decided to try and make my voice heard. Anyway, until I knew what the new government were planning to do I couldn't really comment.

I don't know exactly, but on a fourm (I think it wasn't this one) I heard Narberth mentioned. Also, there seems to be quite a few posts about expendature that will be needed to adapt stations on the main routes for the 26m coaches, and I doubt such works would be considered justified by the cash-stripped DfT if there are any clearence issues at all anywhere west of Swansea.

I've seen a Pembroke bound INTERCITY at Whitland once, and the platform was rather busy with passengers waiting to board. I've also seen a video taken from the service, which shows a substantial number of passengers dissenbarking at Tenby. If this is the norm, there's no way the normal class 150, Pacer or 153 would have sufficent capacity. That said, I doubt you need all 8-cars of the IC125, somewhere between 5 and 7 would probablly be enough. Remove the service altogether and I would imagine the 150s would cope, because Pembrokeshire might either loose the tourisim or see an increase in overflowing car parks. Again it is the enviromental point that matters to me.

Daft though it sounds, the GWR did have slip coaches which they uncoupled on the move, and these didn't have power to get themselves out of the way. I therefore thought it might be worth suggesting doing the same to try and make EMU drags possible without extending journey times much (although you could probablly do the job in a 5 miniute station dwell time anyway).

If end doors will do, that's good, it means the whole fleet can be built with them. However the question remains, could the bi-modes have different gearing while on diesel power, to allow the diesel engines to be less thirsty and still accelerate to 100mph quickly (at the cost of not being able to go faster on diesel)?

There are still too many 'don't knows' for you to form a distinct campaign. You'd better learn fast about what you wish to campaign for!

Oh, and 4 others agree with you. Looking forward to reading your letters in the natinal press then.

It would make sense for Narberth to be the issue, given the tight curve through the station and the tunnel. Pembroke is also quite curved, but the other way so perhaps less of a problem.

Last time I used the PAD-PMD service (last July) there was quite a large crowd forming on the platform and in the car park when it arrived at Tenby. Leaving Swansea around midday it also picks up quite a lot of local traffic. I wouldn't like to see all those passengers on the Pacers that became the norm on the local service last summer. It's not particularly busy after Tenby: if a good proportion of the problem is west of Tenby, perhaps a sensible solution would be to do any required works only that far, with the HST terminating there and connecting with a shuttle DMU to Pembroke Dock. That would require substantial changes to the timetable (but electrification is going to lead to changes anyway) and it might be a bit inconvenient for a HST to sit at Tenby for the turnaround time; there is a siding there, but I don't know about its length or condition.

no way a HST would fit in the siding at Tenby. the 08:45 London Paddington - Pembroke Dock summer saturday is busy til it gets to tenby where the train empties. it does get a few passengers  on its return back but nothing like the amount the 10:00 Pembroke Dock - London paddington service gets.

 you might be able to do some work west of tenby especially to raise the line speed in parts and help reduce journey times, but i cant see anything being able to be done at narbeth .

I do agree that the wires should go to Swansea especially to reduce the Bi-mode tains which can be used on London - Cheltenham/Hereford/Bristol TM/Weston super mare services.

I think it is a good idea for there to be a extra train to Bristol TM as i have seen how busy that route can be at times providing that there is extra capacity to do it.

Hopefully network rail will be able to get funding soon to  tripple or quadroople the line from Parson Street - Filton abbey wood, which hopefully should reduce some of the congestions and the delays caused because of it.

Also another link over there which has a poll (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=42103). Bi-mode got 7 votes, add all the votes for the other options and it looses by a fail margin.

But it's a poll. Doesn't the highest percentage win? And the IEP option is now tied for first place. Someone else just voted for it. I wonder who....... [whistles innocently].

Nice try in attempting to use a hugely inconsequential poll (with, at present, a total of 28 votes) on a rail forum to somehow further your argument.

Everything looses by that logic.   You need one to option to get over 50% by that logic or you'll keep extending the HST until it's 100 years old.  Mind you ... by that logic you might still have the Lord of the Isles in daily service, and we might never have got the HST ...

P.S.  I just took a look and IEP's in the lead at the moment.  I rather suspect, though, that the Dft's experts, for all your criticism of their decision, are more technically informed than most of the voters in this poll.

That Daniel Gooch knew what he was doing though, and if Lord of the Isles was still running along with it's Iron Duke 4-2-2 classmates we'd at least have some very spacious passenger saloons!  ;D

Ha ha, well done that man (or woman) who voted after me! Wasn't you was it grahame?  ;)

Apparently Stuart Baker and Stephen Hammond have just signed up there - might just be a coincidence of course...

Oh and the first local employee of the Hitachi assembly plant in Newton Aycliffe has just signed up.  Mr Hoyahamaoverhere...   ;D

Paul

Steam-age slip coaches weren't attached to trains laden with lots of electronics and computer controlled-everything which might just go wrong when you try to unplug something like a locomotive.

And for the umpteenth time, here on the Cotswold Line, we do not want a reduction in the number of through trains to and from Reading and London nor, it would appear, does FGW as the current operator, with stations from Moreton-in-Marsh eastwards set to get extra London trains from September. For large chunks of the day a five-coach train will do us just fine and there is no point messing around with locomotives on five-coach trains which can happily propel themselves. Nor do we want just a handful of eight-coach through trains a day with one of your precious diesels hooked on the front.

I have no idea about the blooming gearing on diesel power but I don't think the Government would have decided to buy these trains if they had the performance characteristics of a brick, which is unlikely with 2,200+ horsepower. Three-car Turbos go perfectly well here on half that. I expect Roger Ford, who pointed out the flaws in the earlier bi-mode incarnations of IEP, will be busy doing his sums and will reveal all in Modern Railways shortly.

As for the idea that an entire fleet of trains should be designed on the basis of clearances in one tunnel on a branch line which is served by through trains for a few Saturdays each year, or because some people don't like under-floor engines (in which case it must be hard for them to do any travelling by train in much of this country), please spare us any more of this nonsense.

Has it ever occurred to you that some of the bi-modes you dislike so much could go to the South West on diesel power on summer Saturdays to free a couple of HSTs to go to West Wales? Problem solved.

IEP has pulled another vote. It's now a clear leader in this very important poll.

Peter Snow is dusting off his swingometer and David Dimbleby is settling in for an all nighter with a 5 pack of Mars Bars at his disposal.

"And now we cross to Vincent Hanna in Dunny-on-the-Wold, where the locals are currently making do with inadequate Class 166 Turnips......"

With 33% for IEP - 7% more than the next option - it's looking like a clear winner.   Parliamentary candidates have been sent to Westminster on votes of less that 27% of the people who have vote.   Of course, if the DfT doesn't make a decision by 5th May, we may have to ask for the poll to be re-run on the single transferrable vote system. 

Oh - wait - the decision has been made.  Aren't some of us trying to shut the door after the horse has bolted here ;)

Right, you really think there is no alternative to the awful bi-mode idea to maintain services on the Cotswold Line, and that a 5 coach EMU (which wouldn't be able to propel itself where there is no electrification) dragged by a diesel would not allow the Cotswold Line service to be maintained. Ok, but that doesn't mean bi-mode can't be avoided elsewhere. The point of changing the gearing on diesel would be so you can achive the required performance on diesel without burning alot more fuel than the current IC125s and Turbos, that would mittigate one of the problems with the bi-mode IEPs to some extent.

As for changing the train spec to maintain Pembroke Dock services, yes if expensive modifications aren't needed anywhere else it would be better to use the alternative option of cascaded IC225s or maybe even IC125s than to shorten the IEP cars. However if there's a cost saving across all routes by shortening IEP coaches to 23m that might make a difference.

If bi-mode is the only way to keep the service level on the Cotswold Line, then to update the service list:

• London - Oxford - electrification and IEP EMU
• London - Hereford/Worcester/Great Malvern - IEP bi-mode
• London - Bristol Temple Meads via Bath - electrification and IEP EMU
• London - Taunton and beyond - INTERCITY 125
• London - Swansea calling at Reading, Didcot Parkway, Swindon, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff Central, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea - electrification and IEP EMU
• London - Swansea calling at Reading, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff Central and Swansea - INTERCITY 225
• Swansea - Cheltenham Spa - electrification and class 377 EMU (stock and Severn Tunnel Junction - Gloucester funded by WAG)
• London - Cheltenham Spa - electrification and IEP EMU (what are the loadings like? perhaps split 2x 5-car units and have the other form the Bristol Temple Meads via Parkway service? - drag that EMU down to Weston-Super-Mare too maybe?)
• Maesteg - Ebbw Vale - electrification and class 377 EMU (stock and branches funded by WAG)

The INTERCITY 225 (fast) service to Swansea would be the one to extend to Carmarthen and Pembroke Dock - swap 91 for TDM fitted class 57 or 47 at Swansea to allow this. That means the 91 needs to be at the London end, so Swansea Landore depot could used for servicing the 225s. I'd suggest fitting IC225s with ERTMS between removal from ECML and introduction on GWML, which should allow them to use their 140mph top speed if the roll-out goes ahead as was planned a while back. Also, is it possible to fit 91s with regenerative braking? If so do it alongside ERTMS fittment. If there are any  Bristol services that only call at Reading between the junction at Wooton Bassett and Paddington these could use IC225s as well if 30 trains is too much for an hourly fast PAD - SWA service.

Transfer East Coast's Hull and Harrogate services to Grand Central or Hull trains and it might be possible to give East Coast a standard fleet of just IEP EMUs, dragged by 57s, 67s or something to get to Aberdeen/Inverness.

As for the rest of you, ok so you upped the opposing argument on that poll (which as you say is rather inconsequential anyway). My point was that there are a greater number of supporters of my side of the argument than some of you were claiming, I was more trying to knock down that particular opposing argument than further my own.

Those trains are staying with East Coast. End of story. So again please spare us more of this ill-founded speculation about something that will never happen - put it on railforums, which seems to exist largely to indulge this kind of stuff, or write a letter to Mr Hammond and tell him how wrong he is.

Exactly, also why would we want 20+ year old cascaded trains when we can have shiny new ones

Because the shiny new ones might not be able to reach everyone because the coaches are too long. Using 225s in the way I suggest also avoids underfloor diesel engines and carrying the weight of the diesel powerplant around under the wires. Also, I am not speculating whether or not they might be cascaded, I'm trying to find a workable and not too expensive solution to the objections I have with DfT's current plans for IEP.

<begin speculation>I have read speculation that IC225s might be cascaded to the Midland or Anglia main line at some point in the future, however I think these both have a 110mph max meaning if IC225s are ever cascaded anywhere, the GWML makes the most sence, given that it has 125mph streches and could be the first non-HighSpeed line to take 140mph running.</end speculation>

There was a plan to cascade the 91/Mk4s.  Back in early 2009 when the IEP project was going to replace the ECML electric fleet - but that has now clearly been cancelled as announced in parliament by Hammond.

By the way, the MML is currently being improved to allow 125 mph running on some sections, with pro rata increases elsewhere, to take 10 mins off the time to Sheffield.

Paul

With regards to Anglia. I can see the new class 379 replacing 90s and Mk3s on the London-Norwich route. From what I have seen of recent pictures they would more than fit the bill on this line. It has already visited Norwich during testing.

The 379s are beng used on the Stansted Express, with some for Cambridge.  Trips elsewhere are for probably more for unit testing and mileage accumulation - and maybe route clearance, but aren't necessarily indicative that they'll be used on that route.  The relevant RUS strongly suggests that the 90/Mk3 sets will eventually be replaced by 5 x 23m EMUs operating in pairs, similar to the 444s.

Paul

Again something akin to a 444 would do the job for London-Norwich.

I think they did look at ordering class 444 style EMU's for the London - Norwich route

Isn't the problem that siemens have got rid eof the equipment that was needed to build the class 444 or something?

Also there is a annoucement today that cardiff is to take control  over the operations of welsh railways, so maybe if the WAG can find the money they can pay for the wires to be extended to swansea.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/03/15/management-of-railway-lines-devolved-to-wales-91466-28338843/

However that should mean that the London - south wales trains can be all emu's however some bi-mode sets would most likely be needed to work the London Paddington - Cardmarthen service's  which could possibly be extended to fishguard harbour to connect with the ferries to ireland.

If the wires get to Swansea it makes even less sense to cart a couple of diesel engines from Pad to Swansea under the wires.

Swansea is easier to do an engine swap than Cardiff. So another reason for loco haulage of through trains.

You could even have say 10 with catering to Swansea and 5 Westward you'd need one  first composite. With corridor say 3 first compartments x 6 so people aren't disturbed by people going to the buffet.  Standard would be open.

You're trying to comlicate things, which always costs money. THe DfT will be looking to keep things simple & 'standard' in layout.

Exactly what I've been saying, wire to Swansea and use IC225s with a loco-swap at Swansea. No need to worry about 26m coaches fitting the loading guage west of Swansea. Just need to find the cash to wire to Swansea, and some pepole object to my idea of scrapping the heads of the valleys dualing scheme to pay for it. There's a clear choice, road scheme with pontentially large enviromental dis-benifts or rail electrification to avoid enviromentally damaging bi-mode trains (which also allows you the reap the full benifits of the Cardiff - Paddington electrification). Both schemes would have short-term benifits to those who would use them, but I doubt we can afford both schemes, and the rail project is more enviromentally friendly. 

It is a recommendation in the Anglia RUS for the Mk3 replacement, that's all - so it hasn't been 'looked at' - it is something for the future.

Posters in various rail forums reckon for some reason Siemens are incapable of manufacturing 444s because (allegedly) the fabrication jigs were not kept.  I suggest this is rubbish - and that if enough units were ordered Siemens would just replace the jigs from the drawings.  It really is basic stuff.

Paul

The IC225 are designed to run as sets they were never designed to change loco's just look at the class 91's only one aerodynamic end and don't even suggest re-cabbing them.  This discussion will perpetually go round in circles the Secretary of State has stated his choice

And it's only cost ^27 million according to Modern Railways to make a decision no other railway in teh world seems to be making.

I agree ther are bimode railcars operating out of Paris but they aren't 200 miles plus under the wires before they go diesel.

Re Class 91s the reason they have a rear cab was precisely so they could haul freight. However, their utilisation was such that there wasn't enough spare  time available between stabling at night and start up in the morning to get a worthwhile freight haul in between.

We did use to use our Cromptons on the Central for both freight and passenger.

They would run a up morning peak Brighton London Bridge via Uckfield and then take the stock to New Cross Gate run light to Norwood do a cross London freight then back to Norwood light to Gate heat and pick up ECS do an evening  peak Brighton run ,then possibly a van train back to London to do the newspapers in the middle of the night. Ready to do the cycle the next day.

Why would I suggest re-cabbing them? They have a cab at both ends, so there's not the problem you might have trying to back a class 43 (IC125 power car) onto stock. I expect having only one aerodynamic end actually makes the train as a whole slightly more aerodynamic than a class 90 and mrk3s with a DVT on the other end. As long as you don't turn any 91s around while their coaches are off in the west, the aerodynamic end will still be pointing towards London when the stock gets back, so I see no reason why having different cabs would be a problem. Changing couplers might be needed, but the ones they have are automatic anyway (and I think they swap locos between services at Kings Cross sometimes when they want a look at one in the depot) so I'd imagine they are not particularly slow to undo.

Ok I know only 1tph Intercity, but surely it's silly to end the wires at Cardiff as you'll not have a uniform fleet. Plus the bi-mod will presumably take longer than the al electric.

Money.

Us and Them.

Any Colour You Like

Absolutely, it is the Governments decision and not Network Rail.  To go to Swansea there is quite a lot of immunisation of signaling and telecoms that needs to be done, when there were signaling and telecoms renewals west of Cardiff a decision was made not to install to standards because there was a belief that electrification would never happen!!! Even with they recently completed Newport area there is a lot of immunisation that has to be done to bring it up to standards.

NR's focus is to deliver the GWML electrification scheme as specified by the Government not only to budget and to time but to a lower budget and shorter time that way the Government will have greater confidence in NR to deliver electrification make other schemes like the MML more likely but also extensions to existing schemes

And if NR can't deliver, who can? Private contractors - sounds a recipe for muddle/disaster. (But then....)

I'm waiting for Btline now... (http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/rockf.gif) (http://www.millan.net)

Won't having a dual fleet and slower trains cost money? And the distance to Swansea surely can't add much more onto the overall costs?

I suppose we should be grateful that we are hopefully getting the wires to Cardiff.

5 years ago or so, even that didn't seem likely

The Conspirisy Theroy: The government are only claiming to be the greenest ever to avoid too much oposition and are really intent on enviromental suicide. Electrification gives the impression of being green, but with the bi-mode IEP order and gaps in the wiring plan they seem to have done everything they think they can get away with to keep the CO2 reductions of the programme to a minimum. Also, tearing up the planning guidance and replacing it with a default 'YES to development, anywhere' in the way that they are doing looks very risky. If you go down this route you will eventually cover all the UK in houses and, unless everyone in many other nations promptly vanishes, there is no way a population that vast could be kept fed. It is perhaps an even greater challange than climate change but we need population control.

On a more relevant note, Christian Wolmar mentioned on his website that he thinks the Welsh Assembly's lobbying will pay off and the wires will reach Swansea. To which I commented:

"They better change their mind fairly soon, financial close on the IEP order is coming up this year, then ^52million worth of diesel engines will be purchased for their 70 5-car bi-mode sets. If all those bi-modes are ordered, it would be rather wasteful to electrify to Swansea."


I also mentioned, more breifly, my conspirisy theroy and discussed to other possible reasons for not wiring to Swansea:
(a.) Shortage of funds
(b.) Business case (only 1 passenger train per hour going electric without a micro-fleet of units just for the Swansea - Cardiff stopper, which I'd expect to be extended to Bristol given that plans seem to be afoot to drop the Bristol Parkway stop from the Paddington - Swansea trains after electrification).

If (a.) is the reason, then restricting IEP guage clearance to the ECML and the core Bristol/Cardiff/Oxford route on Great Western might save enough money to extend the wires.
If (b.) is the issue, then ValleyLines electrification needs to be bundled with it, they improve each other's business case. Replacment of all south-Wales stoppers with electric traction in one go (by the 2020 Pacer deadline) would include an hourly Maesteg - Ebbw Vale service and an hourly Cardiff - Cheltenham service (which could be run through from Swansea, replacing the Swansea - Cardiff stopper) in addition to the Paddington - Swansea and a Swansea - Bristol service (run with units from the ValleyLines fleet) covering for the loss of the Bristol stop brings the electric passenger service frequency up both east and west of Cardiff. Between Cardiff and Bridgend there would be 4tph (Swansea - Cheltenham, Swansea - Bristol, Swansea Paddington and Ebbw Vale - Maesteg) with 3 of those running through to Swansea

As this latest discussion is really a continuation of a previous topic on this forum, I've now merged them both here.  :-X

Easy answer here - they'll go to Swansea, but only if the Welsh Government put their hands in their pockets....

A good merge, although I wasn't specifically campaigning against bi Mod (as they'll be needed for "West" services for a while).

That's the problem when you desert the boards, you lose track of what's been said!

Where are you getting 'slower trains' from? 

If you are thinking of the particular issue concerning the 10 car bi-mode when off the wires, they have now decided all the bi-modes will be 5 car running singly or in pairs, so there is no longer a problem with them running at 125 mph (where the track allows).

Paul

Surely a train carting round a heavy diesel loco or DMU engines is going to have an impact when compared to an EMU. Irrespective of its length.

Not if the engines pump out enough bhp....

Having a bi-mode train will not cost extra money because only 5 coaches will travel between Cardiff and Swansea.  Might be more energy efficient too than burning fuel or electricity to take 8 or 10 coaches that far west.

I would have thought a significant disadvantage of bi-modes vs pure electric would be the cost of maintaining them. This would be made worse by the fact that the engines would be shut down most of the time so would spend a disproportionate amount of time warming up.

Roger Ford has been querying bi-mode IEP figures ever since the proposals were first put forward.
In the current editon of Modern railways he is puzzling why:
 " .....the IEP is predicted to use up to 45% more energy per mile than a Pendolino under the.whilst sipping only half the fuel of a Voyager?"!

Seem's Nick clegg has someone to say about this:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/09/14/nick-clegg-great-western-electrification-is-a-priority-91466-29417115/

Now how about expanding the GWML scheme to include the Thames Valley Branches, Reading - Bassingstoke (Some trains running through to London Paddington possibly using the paths freed up by withdrawing the Heathrow express services this could help reduce some of the overcrowding into London Waterloo), Cardiff - Swansea/Maesteg and how about wiring the severn tunnel diversionary route as well as wiring from Bristol/Newbury to Plymouth/Penzance.

I think the paths freed up by HEX woulsd more usefully be used by additional GW paths from their own network, stuff the SW lines....

It is a London and SE RUS suggestion to link Basingstoke - Reading.  Proposals A5 in the GWML section, and F6 in the SWT section, are cross referenced as follows:



So it isn't at the expense of the existing proposals for the GW Reading - Paddington shuttles.  It could be just a replacement for the Basingstoke - Reading FGW shuttles in the peak periods, providing direct journeys for people from Bramley and Mortimer; I don't see it as some sort of SWT takeover really...

Paul

Great, now "Calamity Clegg" is onboard it probably won't happen... ::)

Once again, they are announcing something that's already happening. The only reason for this announcement is to appease the people moaning about HS2 sucking jobs away from Wales. They've wheeled out Clegg to the angry mob - just like they did in Brum with the riots. Let's hope he doesn't get attacked this time!

Basingstoke to Paddington shuttles, are not about a SWT takeover, but simply a relief for the SWML fast lines which are full from Woking (reliefs full from Rayners Park). Just like Airtrack would have helped, so Crossrail trains could have started from somewhere like Woking. The main way the Waterloo lines will be relived will be Crossrail 2, which intends to divert "Metro" services from SW London into the tunnel, freeing up capacity for more Surbiton/Woking shuttles (a la Reading).

There's no point in starting Crossrail from Woking. THey are going to be full enough into Padd whether or not they start from MAI or RDG.

I assumed Btline's idea was that some of Crossrail's 'spare' trains could have run to/from Woking as well as the 6 tph on the GWML, but I can't see an obvious route for them to take to get to the Paddington corridor - new build lines would be out of the question, and running round via Virginia Water, Staines and Heathrow would have had all the same problems as Airtrack...

Paul

I assumed he meant up the relief's as part of the 6tph on the GWML, but as usual he failed to explain himself properly.

Really?


My post clearly states that it would be using Airtrack, thus the 10 tph to Heathrow continuing and not the 6tph up the GWML. I'm getting a little tired at you hijacking every thread I post in with an attack - normally when you haven't read the post. We all make mistakes, we all mis-read documents and I'll admit that I have an imagination. :D But the above was unnecessary.

Airtrack has been cancelled. Thus the Basingstoke idea is a good one and will have a similar (i.e. limited but useful) effect.

Has it been confirmed that HeX will be axed? I hope so!

So which adjective do we apply to you, "Bonkers Btline"?

Fine by me. :P But (fortunately/unfortunately) I'm not deputy PM! :o

"Airtrack would have helped" Airtrack what? trains, route, platforms..?....
Both Paul7755 and I made the assumption you wwere referring to accessing the GWML corridor. So yes, I don't think you made yourself clear. "By using the same corridor as Airtrack would have done" is what I would deem clear.


Pot calling kettle here (you do understand that term? Just checking I'm clear), methinks. Replying to any post in any thread is what makes a board work. Better still if your 'bonkers' (not my description) ideas are taken apart and shown for what they are.

And telling the truth is in no way an attack. You weren't clear.

Remember, people with less knowledge than you & I and other members here read this forum, so threads need to show the sense or not in any posted suggestion. It isn't only I that tells you that you keep coming up with bonkers ideas either. I'm hoping one day you'll actually stop and think whether your ideas are sensible for the actual cost of them. You seem to think money grows on trees.


No it wasn't, for the reasons I give above. Two of us misunderstood, god knows how many others couldn't be bothered to respond. It wasn't clear, as usual for your posts.


Do you actually mean running from Basingstoke/Woking to where Airtrack would have branched off to T5, and then following the old Airtrack route into the airport?

Do you understand why Airtrack was cancelled by BAA? Money. Even though an extra platform was being provided free of charge at Reading. Still too expensive. So where are you going to get even more money from for your idea?


Not sure. Obviously Connect is being consumed by CrossRail. I thought HEX was staying as a fast service?

Gentlemen, I don't think it would be unreasonable of me to suggest that the two of you have very different opinions on a range of issues. However the descents into bickering between two parties on numerous threads are starting to become tedious. It would be much appreciated by the Mod Squad, and I suspect everyone else reading these threads, if you could try and keep the tone of debate civilized and polite, rather than squabbling. Can I suggest a bit of a pause for reflection before posting, to avoid inflaming these arguments any further?

We've asked you on several occasions in the last week to keep things civil but our pleas seem to be falling on deaf ears. Please give some thought to this request.

Edited to add...

Just to make things absolutely clear, no sides are being taken here. I am asking both of you to raise your game and stop continually reducing threads to personal squabbles. As you know, we've taken a pretty "light touch" so far, but if things continue on the way they're going then at some stage we'll have to become more pro-active.

Excuse me, but I did - you didn't see my first draft! ;D

Nor my last one - I edited it 4 times!

I'm not interested in scoring points here. You may indeed have made several edits before posting but, IMHO, the tone is still rather confrontational.

Please read, reflect and act on what was posted above. The internecine aggro taking over several different threads has become wearisome to the point of farce, and I'm getting bored of intervening, asking politely for a moderation or cessation of hostilities, and being roundly ignored or rebuffed with a self-justifying comment from one or both sides.

This needs to stop, and soon. There have been enough warnings.

The latest proposal, in the London and SE 2nd generation RUS, has HEx being absorbed into Crossrail, and running on the reliefs in the peaks, but on the fasts offpeak. Hence Hex and Connect will both be subsumed into Crossrail, but some trains may run fast west of Paddington or have a skip stop pattern, depending on time of day. 

Even though it is only a proposal, the Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) response to the relevant RUS (a stand alone document on NR's website) accepts that it is the potential solution to providing more peak fast line paths into Paddington itself.  I'd also point out that a separate response from 'Heathrow Express' disagrees, but I understand HEx is a subsidiary of HAL, so the latter's point of view should be more relevant?

People seem to have different views on the seriousness of these RUS proposals, but having followed a few of them over a number of years they seem to predict what eventually happens on more occasions than not...

Edit:  More text from option A5 added:


Paul

That'll at least free up two more platforms at Pad for GWML services, which will be sufficient to cope those extra 4 fast services mentioned from west of Reading.

It's not looking hopeful for west of Maidenhead's fast serices though....that's the fast lines completely taken up again....

Yes, I'm still quite concerned about some fast services. So assuming Crossrail goes to Reading and takes over the slow lines and HeX is axed:

After IEP the Newburys/Bedwyns could be run by 125 mph stock, so a call at Maidenhead would be possible off peak without slowing journey times.

Slough - hopefully OXF fasts will continue to call off peak. IEP should help get journey times down for OXF and Cotswolds.

Twyford. How about stopping the off peak Cheltenhams here? After redoubling and IEP, I'm assuming they'll be an hourly service from London. IEP and redoubling work would compensate for extra stop.

*Off peak: this plan would enable an hourly fast service from each of the main places between Reading and London (half hourly for Slough), in addition to Crossrail.

*In the peaks, the axed HeX paths would be switched to Reading/Basingstoke using IEP. Each one could make one stop at Slough, Maidenhead or Twyford. IEP would compensate for the extra stop.

Are there any other places that currently have a "fast"/semi fast service to Paddington? Hopefully the skip stop pattern will keep journey times ok for places like West Drayton and Hayes. Not to mention the fact that West End and City workers may not need to use the tube.

There are a number of things that constrain the number of paths out of Paddington one is the platform capacity at Reading this will be largely solved with the Reading rebuild, another is the 1960's multi aspect signaling system which was designed for slow accelerating locomotives and vacuum wheel rim cast iron block breaked stock this will be improved with ERTMS.

You can forget trying to compare post Crossrail, GWML electrification, IEP and Reading rebuild timetabling and train services with the current timetable and services, these schemes will give the opportunity for train planners both NR and TOC's to think out of the box add in other schemes that have happened or are planned such as the Cotswold redoubling, re-signaling in South Wales etc