Call for faster, non-stop expresses from Wales to London

[whole diary]

[Btline]

Very interesting, it's good to see that Network Rail don't intend for long distances services from the Thames Valley to stop after Reading!

So the plan is for NO recovery paths on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) between Paddington and Slough. They'll literally be a train every 3 minutes all day every day! That's a recipe for disaster, IMO^▸ (in my opinion).

And how are these 4 tph semi fasts going to thread over to the slow lines? They will need to time the down service to hit the "empty" up main path every 15 minutes! (I think we'll need a flyover at Slough). I still think that a semi fast 10 car Crossrail would cover it, and leave the fast lines to 16 tph.

The Cotswold train used to leave at xx21, which would fit into the 3 minute headway. I suspect this is just yet another minute of padding added by FGW^▸ (First Great Western). Otherwise the Oxford would soon be up on the Bedwyn's Thames Turbo tail!

[Btline]

Perhaps having 2tph to Swansea, both skip stopping after Cardiff to reduce journey times? One could be extended to Carmathern.

[TonyK]

I would suggest something like this (a slight modification of IndustryInsider's suggestion):
1tph Bristol TM^‡(resolve), Bath Spa, Chippenham, Swindon, Didcot, Reading, Paddington
1tph Bristol TM, Bath Spa, Chippenham, Swindon, Reading, Paddington
1tph Bristol TM, Bristol PW^▸ (Permanent Way), Swindon, Reading, Paddington
1tph Bristol TM, Bristol PW, Reading, Paddington
1tph Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot, Bridgend, Cardiff, Newport, Bristol Parkway, Reading, Paddington
1tph Cardiff, Newport, Bristol Parkway, Swindon, Didcot, Reading, Paddington
1tph Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stonehouse, Stroud, Kemble, Swindon, Didcot, Reading, Paddington

You might have trouble adding the extra stops into the via Parkway Bristol services though, as they may be relying on keeping passengers from intermediate stops off the trains to justify their insanley large fleet of 5-car IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) units, much less capacity per unit than the current IC125s. Would be ok if the IEP fleet was all 9-car.

That pattern seems similar to the model produced for IEP, and shown elsewhere. The "insanely large" 5-car fleet doesn't look so mad when two are coupled from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains), with one 5-car continuing to WSM, something shown in the working model for post IEP. Bear in mind that IEPs, with better braking and acceleration performance, should improve journey times, especially with ETCS^▸ (European Train Control System), so giving a bit of leeway and maybe enabling a stop that would slow HST^▸ (High Speed Train) paths down.

[Rhydgaled]

That pattern seems similar to the model produced for IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), and shown elsewhere. The "insanely large" 5-car fleet doesn't look so mad when two are coupled from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains), with one 5-car continuing to WSM, something shown in the working model for post IEP.

Sorry, but it still looks mad to me since:
(a.) I believe portion working with units that aren't through-gangwayed should be stopped altogether, not increased and
(b.) although there are alot of 5-car sets I don't think it's enough to double up everything.

Perhaps having 2tph to Swansea, both skip stopping after Cardiff to reduce journey times? One could be extended to Carmathern.

No point extending London trains from Swansea to Carmarthen. The wires will stop at Swansea, and you aren't going to save the time required to make Carmarthen - Cardiff time-competitive while still calling at Swansea (unless you make the road slower by reducing speed limits perhaps). Missing Swansea means you probably don't serve a large enough population to have more than 2 or 3 coach trains, so I suggest an hourly 158-operated express service between Cardiff and Carmarthen (stopping at Port Talbot and Llanelli only), extending to Milford Haven in alternate hours.

[eightf48544]

(I think we'll need a flyover at Slough). I still think that a semi fast 10 car Crossrail would cover it, and leave the fast lines to 6 tph.

Interesting comment on the flyover. at slough. It's one of teh problemss of teh 4 track railway that for through stations you need two island paltforms each served by trains in teh same direction so that a slow can arrive and interchange with a fast in both directions. So the lines need to paired by direction. However at teh termainl station to prevent trains having to cros the whole throught you need the approach lines to paired by use so you have mains and Reliefs and half the staion is served by the  Mains and the other half  by the Reliefs. Hence the flyovers at Wimbledon out of Waterloo and and Maryland out of Liverpool Street. Hence a flyover somewhere between Acton  and Hayes, However the stations aren't then suitable for cross platform interchange.

it's one of the problems with the GMWL that there are few palces where a stopper can be overtaken by a fast and also provide cross platform interchange.

If someone can tell me how to do it I have a video of an ICE and IC^▸ (Inter City) arriving in parallel at Mannheim to effect a crtoss paltform interchange. No defensive driving as the IC overtakes the ICe whislt running down the paltform.

I'm also afraid that a semi fast Crossrail, doesn't work as it's designed to be a Metro service we already ahve the problem of only 10 tph working West of Padd and 14tph terminating,.   

[grahame]

it's one of the problems with the GMWL that there are few palces where a stopper can be overtaken by a fast and also provide cross platform interchange.

If someone can tell me how to do it I have a video of an ICE and IC^▸ (Inter City) arriving in parallel at Mannheim to effect a crtoss paltform interchange. No defensive driving as the IC overtakes the ICe whislt running down the paltform.

I made the change at Mannheim last month - from the Interlaken to Berlin train into the Munich to Altona service - very impressive.   Saw the thing at Eindhoven - Maastrict to Alkmaar train swapping passengers with the Venlo to Den Haag service that I (stayed) on.

You need an island platform between each of the pairs of lines.  But most GW^▸ (Great Western) / South West stations have outer platforms and a single island.  And then you need independent (non-conflicting) running in and out.  Even with flyovers in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), without relaying out stations too it would be awkward.   Thinking about each possible place in turn, I end up thinking "yes, but" ...

Perhaps the smallest "but" turns out to be off the Bristol / Cardiff line and on the line to the South West - at Westbury.   Every hour, the electric train from London (Paddington, Maidenhead, Reading, Newbury, Kintbury, Hungerford, Bedwyn, Pewsey, Westbury, Frome, Bruton, Castle Cary, Langport, Taunton, Tiverton, Exeter and stations to Exmouth) pulls in at platform 0 (track back, please!) alongside the train from Bedford (Bedford, major stations via Bletchley to Oxford, Wantage, Swindon, Royal Wootton Bassett, Chippenham, Melksham, Trowbridge, Westbury platform 1, Dilton Marsh, Warminster, Wilton, Salisbury, Dean, Mottisfont, Romsey, Chandler's Ford, Eastleigh, Southampton Airport and Southampton Central.

OK - that's rather naughty - but who knows in 20 years?

[TonyK]

Sorry, but it still looks mad to me since:
(a.) I believe portion working with units that aren't through-gangwayed should be stopped altogether, not increased and
(b.) although there are alot of 5-car sets I don't think it's enough to double up everything.

I agree to an extent, but the fact remains we will have to get the best from what we have. The planning for the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) project began long before the big upturn in passenger numbers, or probably there would have been more 9-car sets. But the line to WSM from BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) will not be electrified, so any extended services will need the hybrid sets. They won't need two, most of the time, so one will sit at BRI for a while, whilst the back of the pantomime horse nips off to the seaside and back.

They are not through-gangwayed, which is not ideal. As all the gatelines on the route are in operation,  tickets won't need checking so closely, and one TM^‡(resolve) could operate it, swapping cars at a station maybe. It is not without precedent.

[paul7575]

But the line to WSM from BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) will not be electrified, so any extended services will need the hybrid sets.

Why not?   The 2009 electrification RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) assumed that a phase of a future programme that covered from Bromsgrove to Plymouth, primarily for XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) purposes, would include Weston.

Perhaps we should wait for the latest iteration of the electrification strategy to be issued before writing off various options as impossible...

Paul

[anthony215]

Exactly and we see this now in the north west of england where we had the routes originally proposed for electrification with Network Rail now adding additional routes.

We could very well see further routes added to the GW^▸ (Great Western) electrification especially as part of the Crosscountry route.

A good example could be the Severn Beach branch in Bristol as well as the Bath/Chippenham - Westbury - Southampton line as part of providing an additional electrified route north from Southampton for freights etc.

We already have the suggestion that the wires could be extended beyond Newbury to Bedwyn/Westbury. The point being that the business case for the extending the wires improves as more wires are put up.

Who knows we could very well see the Tranwilts route run by some class 377/3's displaced by newer stock from Southern or class 319's working the Metrowest routes.

[Btline]

The idea of having 2 5 car IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) is ludicrous and should be BINNED.

I mean it is potty - just run a 10 car IEP (no 8 or 9 car units please) all the way to Weston.
SCRAP the hybrid version and use the millions saved to extend the wires a tiny but more to Weston.
It is stupid to uncouple and re couple - with the performance risk - just to save a unit or two! Coupling also extends journey times (unacceptable), as will having a diesel engine and fuel (REDUNDANT for 90% of the journey) weighing the train down.

Also- the two First Class carriages will be miles apart, which means two stewards! Presumable the 1st compartment near the London end will be packed and the one halfway up empty...

Who came up with this crackpot IEP? This mess needs sorting...

[Btline]

Interesting comment on the flyover. at slough.

Yes, if the fast lines were paired by direction, you could have a Surbiton style layout at Slough with no conflicting movements.

The 4 tph semi fasts would switch to the slows at Slough (no longer needing a flyover), taking the paths of Crossrail services which have turned off to Heathrow. The semi fast would then be free to make other calls at Maidenhead whilst HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) overtake on the fasts.

It would still leave the issue of 20 tph on the fast lines Pad to Slough - any delays would cause chaos.

[Rhydgaled]

But the line to WSM from BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) will not be electrified, so any extended services will need the hybrid sets.

Why not?   The 2009 electrification RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) assumed that a phase of a future programme that covered from Bromsgrove to Plymouth, primarily for XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) purposes, would include Weston.

Perhaps we should wait for the latest iteration of the electrification strategy to be issued before writing off various options as impossible...

Exactly, Weston-Super-Mare is not included in the current electrification programme, but if we have a rolling programme it may not be far off. Personally, I think the Weston-S.M. - Bristol and Swindon - Cheltenham sections should be CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) schemes, with IC125s having a short-term derrogation from accessiblity regulations to allow IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) introduction for those routes to be deferered until those wires are up. Those IEPs can then be electric rather than bi-mode. If you want to get new trains on those routes right away, then they need to be 9-car bi-modes which can be cascaded to replace derrogated IC125s on the PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-Plymouth/Penzance route (prefrably with more electrification to cover a third of the route, otherwise I'm concerned they would burn more diesel than the IC125s) when the wires reach Weston-S.M. and Cheltenham.

The idea of having 2 5 car IEPs is ludicrous and should be BINNED.

I mean it is potty - just run a 10 car IEP (no 8 or 9 car units please) all the way to Weston.
SCRAP the hybrid version and use the millions saved to extend the wires a tiny but more to Weston.
It is stupid to uncouple and re couple - with the performance risk - just to save a unit or two! Coupling also extends journey times (unacceptable), as will having a diesel engine and fuel (REDUNDANT for 90% of the journey) weighing the train down.

Also- the two First Class carriages will be miles apart, which means two stewards! Presumable the 1st compartment near the London end will be packed and the one halfway up empty...

Who came up with this crackpot IEP? This mess needs sorting...

Yes, mad. I don't think 9-car is a bad idea though, perhaps even a few 8-car sets (though ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) might need some 10-cars as well as 9-cars). A 2x 5-car IEP (10 coaches) would cost as much in 'leasing' cost as a proper 10-car IEP, yet have only 3 more seats than a 9-car IEP. It would also have two kitchens (both only for first class passengers) and passengers boarding the nearest door might find themselves in the wrong portion (my main concern with non-gangway portion working). And as for replacing existing, MUCH cheaper to run, electric trains with 10 years life left in them on the ECML... Total madness.

Unfortunately, it isn't possible to resolve all the crackpot-ness of IEP. For example, the diesel engine and fuel (REDUNDANT for 99.9% of journies, we hope) weighing the 'electric' IEPs down, and adding to maintainance costs, is unfortunately in an un-assailable position. However, to make the best of the mess we have been landed with, I propose something like:

ECML

• Replace the 5-car IEPs ordered for the ECML with half that number of true 10-car sets, in 'electric' form
• Replace the 9-car bi-modes ordered for the ECML with 9-car 'electrics', dragged by diesel locos to Hull, Harrogate and Lincoln (with the former two being electrified in CP6, cutting drag duties)
• Retain IC225s on ECML, fitted with ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) for 140mph running (not sure about 140, but Eversholt were planning to fit ERTMS before DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) signed the IEP order) with loco-exchange to a diesel at Edinburgh for the 4 trains per day north of there, with the locos coming from a slightly enlarged Calidonian Sleeper pool

GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line)

• Replace 5-car sets with 9-car ones (perhaps a few 8-cars if you expect to have some diagrams which can cope with 8-car), using the coaches from the canceled IC225 replacement order
• Reduce the number of b-modes to about 11 (enough for Cotswolds and the proposed Westbury semi-fast), unless you plan to replace IC125s altogether in CP6
• Postpone introduction of arround 10 sets ('electric' ones, for Cheltenham and Weston-Super-Mare services) to CP6, to allow for extended electrification

Also, move the kitchen/buffet to between first and standard, so both classes can benifit.

[Tim]

I agree with you completely.  But hopefully the day will come when the extra weight and maintenance costs of the engines on the bi-modes can be cut by simply removing the engines.   

[Btline]

Very well said, that would solve this issue.
Why is it than in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) things that need sorting with a bit of common sense are.

We should start a Coffeeshop Political Party and spread common sense across the country.

[John R]

However, to make the best of the mess we have been landed with, I propose something like:


The GW^▸ (Great Western) and HST^▸ (High Speed Train) replacement on EC contracts have been signed so it doesn't matter what you, I or anyone propose, it won't happen.