Electrification - so Cascade - so congestion easing - delayed.

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

Well said dear fellow. Well said.

And it's this same self serving group who have decided that a spur is best for Henbury. 

Not in my name.

If you need an accomplice FT,N! (or alibi) for your extreme measures... 

[TonyK]

If you need an accomplice FT,N! (or alibi) for your extreme measures... 

Probably not necessary, with 500,000 possible suspects.

[grahame]

Back (somewhat) on topic - the select committee report has been published at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmpubacc/473/473.pdf and that takes very much a look at what's gone wrong rather than looking at what and how the program - needed to relieve overcrowding, allow continuing growth, and renew worn out systems - can be delivered, whether it can be delivered fully, and with what changes and effects.    That's promised for the Hendy report which is expected very soon.

[grahame]

OK ... I've just been on Radio Wiltshire to speak to this for TravelWatch SouthWest.    Following ... not exactly what I said, but my preparatory write-up ... which was in front of me to keep me on topic 


My own summary - A combination of Network Rail, the Department for Transport and the Office of Road and Rail are criticised by a select committee of MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) for getting the rail infrastructure program to upgrade the Great Western Mainline very wrong indeed.   It's way over budget, underresourced in terms of available expertise, and going to be delievered late at the least bad.

"It is alarming that, in planning work intended to support these plans, its judgment should be so flawed. Our inquiry has found that the agreed work could never have been delivered within the agreed budget and timeframe. Yet Network Rail, the Department for Transport and the regulator ^ the Office of Rail and Road ^ signed up to the plans anyway." says Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

So ... what's going to be done about it?  Three reviews are underway, the first - Sir Peter Hendy's assessment of how much work can realistically now be conducted by 2019 for the budget provided, is expected to be published next week.

It's a fair bet that electrification won't go as far / fast on the Great Western lines as has been planned - which was London to Windsor / Marlow / Henley, to Newbury, to Basingstoke, to Oxford, to Bristol via Hullavington and via Chippenham, and to Swansea.  In turn that will delay the release of rolling stock to replace and supplement others across the south west for use on lines and services which were not due to be electrified.  This need to supplement is a serious matter, as passenger growth on the rail network across the South West has been at a far higher rate than has been provided for, resulting in seriously overcrowded trains that are no longer able to carry all the passengers who wish to travel.

For some services, planned strengthening was already scheduled too late to prevent a significant loss of business, and the economic and environmental impacts of that loss, and actions are required to find alternative ways of providing more capacity across the South West, and in the shorter rather than the longer term.

For passengers in SWINDON AND WILTSHIRE and travelling to / from those areas, immediate issues include:
* Overcrowding on London trains between Reading and London
* Overcrowding into Bath and Bristol from Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge, Westbury, Warminster and Frome
* Overcrowding from Swindon on regional services via Stroud and via Chippenham and Trowbridge to Westbury.
(Note - this is part of a larger picture; there is also gross overcrowding all the way from the Thames Valley via Bristol and South Wales to Exeter and the far South West.  My picture is looking specifically at the Swindon and Wiltshire economic area)

Great Western Railway - operators of the majority of these services - will no doubt be looking for solutions (operational and financial) in association with the government and other rail industry organisations already.  It is very much in everyone's interest at this time not only to learn from what has happened but also and more importantly to fill the void that could be left with services in the short medium and longer term that are fit for current and future passenger purpose.
[/quote]

[eightf48544]

Can't remember whether it was Friday's 20/15 Telegraph or Saturday's Times that had an article on rail overcrowding quoting problems particularly with Northern rail and overall shortage of DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit). it mentioned the Viva Rail and the 230s and bimodes but had a paragraph towards the end saying 120 plus diesel carriges are on order!

Where have these sprung form?

Also as anside had a talk from Chiltern last Thursday. He was unapologetic about grabbing the the poterbrook 170s and turnng them into 168/3. Said they took a commercila decision to bid for them when they came off lease.

[paul7575]

...but had a paragraph towards the end saying 120 plus diesel carriges are on order!

Where have these sprung form?

They were a specific requirement of the Northern ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender).  A part of the relatively high profile political debate earlier in the year that resulted in DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and the SofS being at loggerheads about Pacer withdrawal from Northern.

Paul

[Timmer]

Can't remember whether it was Friday's 20/15 Telegraph or Saturday's Times that had an article on rail overcrowding quoting problems particularly with Northern rail and overall shortage of DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit). it mentioned the Viva Rail and the 230s and bimodes but had a paragraph towards the end saying 120 plus diesel carriges are on order!

It was in Saturday's Times.

[eightf48544]

Thnaks Timmer it was my Climbing Club's Away Dinner.

Paul Have they been ordered yet or is it being quitely dropped?

[Rhydgaled]

Thnaks Timmer it was my Climbing Club's Away Dinner.

Paul Have they been ordered yet or is it being quitely dropped?

Has the franchise been awarded yet? If not, I doubt the 120 DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) vehicles will have been ordered yet except perhaps if all bidders selected the same DMU design, or DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) is handling procurement of the DMUs and not given bidders any choice.

[TonyK]

Thnaks Timmer it was my Climbing Club's Away Dinner.

Table Mountain?

I'll get my cagoule...

[paul7575]

Have they been ordered yet or is it being quitely dropped?

I think (as Rhydgaled suggested) the franchise award will include the details, as each bidder will have had to do their own deal.  But I really doubt the requirement would be 'quietly dropped', noting all the political statements about the franchise being reported elsewhere...

Paul

[stuving]

This is what the ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) says:

5.4.2.2    The Department requires a Franchisee who wi ll procure and bring into service, no  later than 1 January 2020, a minimum of 120 new carriages that are capable of being used to operate Passenger Services on non-electrified routes. They must be designed with future demand and users^ needs in  mind, with a clear focus on passenger comfort and with a thoroughly modern passenger  environment and exterior look. These must be newly-built (not re-using components from existing rolling stock) and, unless the Bidder intends for them to be hauled by a locomotive, must be capable of operating under their own power for significant distances on non-electrified routes. This means that  DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) or IPE MUs^▸ (Multiple Unit) with battery range broadly comparable to or better than the unit currently being trialled in the Anglia Franchise could contribute to meeting this requirement, but conventional EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) or EMUs with a ^last mile diesel^ capability would not. They must remain part of the Train Fleet until the end of the Franchise Term. Bidders proposing to meet some or all of this requirement with vehicles other than conventional DMUs, may (but are not obliged to) raise a confidential BCQ and if they do the  Department will provide a view on whether the proposal would be acceptable in fulfilment of this requirement.

As you can see, the main thing it rules out is any locomotive, even a new one, hauling existing carriages.

[eightf48544]

Thanks Stuving.

Interesting that it says 120 carriages but doesn't specify number of units. Is that 60 2 car, 40 3 car or 30 4 car or a mixture of each. I suppose that's what makes bidding for a rail franchise such fun having to guess what the Dft actually require

As well as ruling out 68s on old coaches it also rules out Viva Rails 230. Although I wonder if a 68 and 3 new coaches would be cheaper than an a 3 car Dmu

Will we see some Stadler GW2/6, those with the short power car in the middle of the train, probably too inovative for the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) even if they've been running successfully in Europe since 1995?

Otherwise how about Siemans 186s,  Bombardier 173s, or Alstrom 176s?



.

[grahame]

Will we see some Stadler GW2/6, those with the short power car in the middle of the train, probably too inovative for the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) even if they've been running successfully in Europe since 1995?

Would the Stadler GTW fit the British loading gauge though?

[TonyK]

Thanks Stuving.

Interesting that it says 120 carriages but doesn't specify number of units. Is that 60 2 car, 40 3 car or 30 4 car or a mixture of each. I suppose that's what makes bidding for a rail franchise such fun having to guess what the Dft actually require

Four 2-car units operating every 15 minutes will potentially carry the same number of pax as 2 four-car units running half-hourly. DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) is concerned with capacity before it is concerned with frequency, leaving the latter for NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) to decide.