Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 10:55 28 Mar 2024
- Man suffers life-threatening injuries after train stabbing
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
* Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1917)
Bideford, Westward Ho! and Appledore closed (link)

Train RunningCancelled
09:12 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
09:29 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
10:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
10:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
10:41 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
11:00 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
11:05 Swindon to Westbury
11:16 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
11:23 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
11:30 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
11:50 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
12:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
12:17 Westbury to Swindon
12:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
13:15 Swindon to Westbury
14:19 Westbury to Swindon
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
Short Run
06:00 London Paddington to Penzance
06:05 Penzance to London Paddington
07:28 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
07:33 Weymouth to Gloucester
09:45 Bristol Temple Meads to Salisbury
09:50 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
10:55 Paignton to London Paddington
11:12 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
11:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
Delayed
06:37 Plymouth to London Paddington
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
08:48 London Paddington to Swansea
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
09:30 Weymouth to Gloucester
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
09:51 Warminster to Gloucester
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
10:23 London Paddington to Oxford
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 11:14:39 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[171] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[97] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[66] Return of the BRUTE?
[56] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[52] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[41] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 176
  Print  
Author Topic: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion  (Read 1046617 times)
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #375 on: November 26, 2010, 09:39:03 »

Does confirmation of electrification to Oxford mean that there will be some re-thinking on Crossrail? It would surely be a good opportunity to make better use of the Crossrail tunnel, reducing the number of trains that will terminate at Paddington from the East, and free up some platform space at Paddington.

Makes sense to me.  But I suspect that the Government will want to complete crossrail as it is currently planned first and draw a line under that and then work-up any changes as a separate project.  Crossrail funding is complicated and altering the project befor eit is comepleted might risk some of the contributions. 
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #376 on: November 26, 2010, 10:08:45 »

Slightly surprising that DafT seem to have ruled out the Voyager with an electric transformer coach idea which Bombardier has been pushing hard, in particular as a way to speed up MML» (Midland Main Line. - about) wiring.

That hasn't really been proposed as an IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) option though has it. Adding a pantograph to various Voyagers and Meridians is a way of allowing the existing fleet to run under wires where their routes currently allow them to, such as on the ECML (East Coast Main Line) or south of Bedford, and at the same time lengthen to 5 or 6 coaches long.

That would be a huge benefit to those fleets, but they'd still be used in their current areas AFAICT (as far as I can tell)...

Paul 
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #377 on: November 26, 2010, 10:23:27 »

Slightly surprising that DafT seem to have ruled out the Voyager with an electric transformer coach idea which Bombardier has been pushing hard, in particular as a way to speed up MML» (Midland Main Line. - about) wiring.

That hasn't really been proposed as an IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) option though has it. Adding a pantograph to various Voyagers and Meridians is a way of allowing the existing fleet to run under wires where their routes currently allow them to, such as on the ECML (East Coast Main Line) or south of Bedford, and at the same time lengthen to 5 or 6 coaches long.

That would be a huge benefit to those fleets, but they'd still be used in their current areas AFAICT (as far as I can tell)...

Paul 

I think that you are right Paul.  Although it is not completely clear to me that the governemnt will choose one of the EIP options on the table at the moment.  They might choose something else.  One option for them would be to choose an electric fleet for the routes that are wired and a diesel  fleet for the non-wired routes.  The temptation must be to choose DMUs (Diesel Multiple Unit) rather than proper deisel locos and the voyager/pantagraph argument could be used to justify that decision. 

I can't get too excited about running diesels under the wires.  If the wires only get to Cardiff and Bristol then I cant see that running diesels from paddington to Penzance and from Paddington to carmarthern or Swansea is all that terrible.   And when the wires do reach Swansea the deisel stock will find work elseware I am sure. 
Logged
eightf48544
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4574


View Profile Email
« Reply #378 on: November 26, 2010, 11:00:40 »

I can't get too excited about running diesels under the wires.  If the wires only get to Cardiff and Bristol then I cant see that running diesels from paddington to Penzance and from Paddington to carmarthern or Swansea is all that terrible.   And when the wires do reach Swansea the deisel stock will find work elseware I am sure. 

I am afraid I disgree with you completely on this one.

One of the stupidist things the current regime has given us is HSTs (High Speed Train) on the ECML (East Coast Main Line) running Newcastle and Leeds services entirely under the wires because of lack of suitable electric stock.

Go to KX around 10:00 and there are (were) 4 HSTs in under an hour. Inverness, Sunderalnd Leeds and Newcastle, two of which are under the wires all the way.

I also don't think freight should be diesel hauled under the wires. An electrified railway should use electric traction for all trains.

OK so you have a loco change at the end of the wires but Cambridge (and other places) used to do it in under three minutes on the Kings Lynn through trains. As the wires are likely to end at a reasonably large town the 3 minute dwell time would not really affect the overall journey time it would disappear if excessive padding was removed.
Logged
standclearplease
Full Member
***
Posts: 86


View Profile
« Reply #379 on: November 26, 2010, 11:23:05 »

Would the argument be that having a bi-mode train would add too much weight?

Lugging around a transformer when not under the wires, and lugging around a diesel engine when under the wires doesn't sound efficient. Saying that, neither does running an electric train being pulled by a diesel train whilst not under wires.

But there we go.  Cheesy
Logged
Henry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 369


View Profile
« Reply #380 on: November 26, 2010, 11:50:55 »

http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=140772
Logged
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 977


View Profile
« Reply #381 on: November 26, 2010, 12:06:31 »






OK so you have a loco change at the end of the wires but Cambridge (and other places) used to do it in under three minutes on the Kings Lynn through trains. As the wires are likely to end at a reasonably large town the 3 minute dwell time would not really affect the overall journey time it would disappear if excessive padding was removed.

Yep.

They could replace a XC (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) Cl47 at Coventry or Birmingham NS with a Cl86 in 4 minutes.

Very good when you think of two sets of screw couplings, brake hoses and ETH jumpers and two shunting movements (and oil lamps).

It took 22 minutes at Preston, for a Blackpool train.

OTC


Logged
stebbo
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 445


View Profile
« Reply #382 on: November 26, 2010, 13:29:45 »

This assumes that the electric stock will be driven by a locomotive at one end. If an emu type stock, then the diesel has to haul the whole lot.
Logged
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4355


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #383 on: November 26, 2010, 13:39:15 »

This assumes that the electric stock will be driven by a locomotive at one end. If an emu type stock, then the diesel has to haul the whole lot.
Technically there is no reason why an eclectic loco could not couple to a DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) or a diesel loco to an EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) it just needs for them both to have the same type auto couplers, this would make for a very flexible system and would not mean the dead hauling of equipment for long distances however it would mean stabling points etc
Logged

Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #384 on: November 26, 2010, 13:48:50 »

I do take your point, Running "under the wires" without electric traction is not good and more of the trains leaving kings cross shoudl be electric, but I don't think you can too much of a purist about it.  If you look at the GWML (Great Western Main Line) after the currently promised electrification is complete, a train from London to Plymouth or Penzance will only be running under the wires for a small proportion of its journey.  To make that train bi-mode with the extra cost and reliability issues, and the performance and energy efficiency penalty caused by dragging the weight of two sets of equipment arround or the time penalty caused by coupling a loco on and off does not seem worth it.  I think it is a no brainer to make those journeys with deisel traction the whole way.   Especially as we want to keep things simple and affordable.

If the wires go up to Cardiff but not Swansea then the facts change.  Running lots of diesels every day all the way from Paddington to Swansea/Carmarthen doesn't look so sensible as a higher proportion of the route is electrified.  The business case for buying deisel trains for that route are also less clear cut as their is a reasonable chance that the wires will eventually get to Swansea.   I am still not convinced that bi-mode is the answer, because you would be talking an expensive and complex train as a solution to what might be a tempory problem.  Loco haulage might be an answer (especially if the class 67s can be used as they are short of work) as well as changing the calling patterns off peak and terminating more trains at cardiff with more of the manchester or Pompy trains extended to Swansea.  
I can't get too excited about running diesels under the wires.  If the wires only get to Cardiff and Bristol then I cant see that running diesels from paddington to Penzance and from Paddington to carmarthern or Swansea is all that terrible.   And when the wires do reach Swansea the deisel stock will find work elseware I am sure. 

I am afraid I disgree with you completely on this one.

One of the stupidist things the current regime has given us is HSTs (High Speed Train) on the ECML (East Coast Main Line) running Newcastle and Leeds services entirely under the wires because of lack of suitable electric stock.

Go to KX around 10:00 and there are (were) 4 HSTs in under an hour. Inverness, Sunderalnd Leeds and Newcastle, two of which are under the wires all the way.

I also don't think freight should be diesel hauled under the wires. An electrified railway should use electric traction for all trains.

OK so you have a loco change at the end of the wires but Cambridge (and other places) used to do it in under three minutes on the Kings Lynn through trains. As the wires are likely to end at a reasonably large town the 3 minute dwell time would not really affect the overall journey time it would disappear if excessive padding was removed.

I do take your point, Running "under the wires" without electric traction is not good and more of the trains leaving kings cross shoudl be electric, but I don't think you can too much of a purist about it.  If you look at the GWML after the currently promised electrification is complete, a train from London to Plymouth or Penzance will only be running under the wires for a small proportion of its journey.  To make that train bi-mode with the extra cost and reliability issues, and the performance and energy efficiency penalty caused by dragging the weight of two sets of equipment arround or the time penalty caused by coupling a loco on and off does not seem worth it.  I think it is a no brainer to make those journeys with deisel traction the whole way.   Especially as we want to keep things simple and affordable.

If the wires go up to Cardiff but not Swansea then the facts change.  Running lots of diesels every day all the way from Paddington to Swansea/Carmarthen doesn't look so sensible as a higher proportion of the route is electrified.  The business case for buying deisel trains for that route are also less clear cut as their is a reasonable chance that the wires will eventually get to Swansea.   I am still not convinced that bi-mode is the answer, because you would be talking an expensive and complex train as a solution to what might be a tempory problem.  Loco haulage might be an answer (especially if the class 67s can be used as they are short of work) as well as changing the calling patterns off peak and terminating more trains at cardiff with more of the manchester or Pompy trains extended to Swansea.
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #385 on: November 26, 2010, 13:52:45 »

This assumes that the electric stock will be driven by a locomotive at one end. If an emu type stock, then the diesel has to haul the whole lot.

If we have diesel locos hauling electric trains or EMUs (Electric Multiple Unit) will those diesels need to run arround at the end of their journeys?  Is the trackwork in place in Swansea and other places for them to do this?  Is this still feasible on a busy railway? Of are we going to need more complicated stock capable of driving a diesel loco from an EMU cab? Doesn't complexity add to cost and risk?
Logged
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4355


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #386 on: November 26, 2010, 15:21:50 »

This assumes that the electric stock will be driven by a locomotive at one end. If an emu type stock, then the diesel has to haul the whole lot.

If we have diesel locos hauling electric trains or EMUs (Electric Multiple Unit) will those diesels need to run arround at the end of their journeys?  Is the trackwork in place in Swansea and other places for them to do this?  Is this still feasible on a busy railway? Of are we going to need more complicated stock capable of driving a diesel loco from an EMU cab? Doesn't complexity add to cost and risk?
Or run it in effect as a DVT(resolve) no need to decouple the loco at the remote end
Logged

Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
eightf48544
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4574


View Profile Email
« Reply #387 on: November 26, 2010, 15:23:50 »

That was exactly what the Southern Region did from1967 until the conductor rails reached Weymouth.

A 4 REP pushed 1 or 2 4 TCs(resolve) to Bournemouth where a 33 came on the front and took 1 or 2 of the TCs down to Weymouth. Pushing them back to Bournemouth where the coupled onto a waiting REP.

Couplings were buckeye with a brake pipes and  and a standard control cable to couple.

Each individual 4 car set REP or TC had a driving cab at each end as did the 33. Worked beautifully.
 
Logged
brompton rail
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile
« Reply #388 on: November 26, 2010, 15:38:22 »

Yes, but it didn't travel at 125 mph though.
Logged
Worcester_Passenger
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1702


View Profile
« Reply #389 on: November 26, 2010, 16:25:45 »

But surely a modern version could travel at 125 mph?
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 176
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page