Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 18:15 28 Mar 2024
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Passengers pleaded with knifeman during attack
* Family anger at sentence on fatal crash driver, 19
- 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 (1988)
Formal end to carrying coffins by BR (link)

Train RunningCancelled
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:48 Reading to Gatwick Airport
17:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
18:04 Bristol Temple Meads to Filton Abbey Wood
18:04 Bedwyn to Newbury
18:08 London Paddington to Frome
18:26 Newbury to Bedwyn
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
18:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
18:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
19:24 Newbury to Bedwyn
19:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
19:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
20:16 Frome to Westbury
20:49 Newbury to Bedwyn
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
21:16 Bedwyn to Newbury
Short Run
14:49 Plymouth to Cardiff Central
15:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:15 Plymouth to London Paddington
15:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
15:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
15:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
16:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:20 Reading to Gatwick Airport
17:30 London Paddington to Taunton
17:30 Warminster to Bristol Temple Meads
17:36 Swindon to Westbury
17:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
18:18 Newbury to London Paddington
19:06 London Paddington to Bedwyn
20:42 Bedwyn to London Paddington
Delayed
13:59 Cardiff Central to Penzance
14:15 Penzance to London Paddington
14:36 London Paddington to Paignton
15:03 London Paddington to Penzance
16:03 London Paddington to Penzance
Additional 17:17 Exeter St Davids to Penzance
Additional 17:26 Castle Cary to Penzance
17:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
17:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 18:25 Shalford to Reading
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, 18:19:31 *
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
[133] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[132] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[53] Return of the BRUTE?
[44] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[41] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[32] 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 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 176
  Print  
Author Topic: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion  (Read 1046671 times)
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10095


View Profile
« Reply #600 on: April 01, 2011, 20:20:34 »

Interesting that he should mention it specifically in a speech.  I don't think it's dead in the water quite yet, though of course the phrase 'active review' was used when the Cardiff electrification was announced, so he isn't actually saying anything new.
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4355


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


View Profile
« Reply #601 on: April 02, 2011, 14:39:08 »

Interesting that he should mention it specifically in a speech.  I don't think it's dead in the water quite yet, though of course the phrase 'active review' was used when the Cardiff electrification was announced, so he isn't actually saying anything new.
And with the new Network Rail Wales Route this should ensure the funds are found.

Logged

Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
anthony215
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1260


View Profile Email
« Reply #602 on: April 02, 2011, 15:43:09 »

I know there has been talk about using tram-trains, a mention of this was in current issue of modern railways.

 I hope the wires do come through to Swansea, so that means the governemnt can order more EMU (Electric Multiple Unit)'S  and less of the Bi-mode. That said the only places i think would really need the Bi-mode options are the London Paddington - Hereford/Cheltenham/Weston Super Mare/Exeter St Davids services.

If the wires also went to Westbury/Taunton, that could mean a increase in capacity on the Cardiff - Bristol - Taunton corridor as the trains could be worked by some class 319's or maybe some new units ordered on the back of the crossrail order.

Hopefully we will have further electrification projects after the great western is finished, ideal routes i would do are:

  • Coventry - Oxford - Reading - Bassingstoke

  • Thames Branches including Greenford & fill in on the North Downs Line
  • Cardiff Valley Lines & Newport - Crewe & Severn Tunnel Jct/Bristol - Birmingham

  • Exmouth - Exeter St Davids - Okehampton/Barnstaple ( be done as part of electrification of the Bassingstoke to Exeter line
  • Lines around Romsey ( This will free up class 158/159 units to go to ATW (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC (Train Operating Company))) & East Midlands Trains)
  • London Marylebone-Aylesbury/High Wycombe/Banbury
[/list]
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #603 on: April 02, 2011, 15:50:53 »

  • London Marylebone-Aylesbury/High Wycombe/Banbury

Not sure I agree with your list - Thames branches?? There are many more sensible options to do first! - but watch the bids for the next franchise on this one....
Logged
anthony215
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1260


View Profile Email
« Reply #604 on: April 02, 2011, 15:52:34 »

  • London Marylebone-Aylesbury/High Wycombe/Banbury

Not sure I agree with your list - Thames branches?? There are many more sensible options to do first! - but watch the bids for the next franchise on this one....

I meant the lines from Twyford - Henley on thames etc and make these part of crossrail .

Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #605 on: April 02, 2011, 15:57:18 »

    I know there has been talk about using tram-trains, a mention of this was in current issue of modern railways.

     I hope the wires do come through to Swansea, so that means the governemnt can order more EMU (Electric Multiple Unit)'S  and less of the Bi-mode. That said the only places i think would really need the Bi-mode options are the London Paddington - Hereford/Cheltenham/Weston Super Mare/Exeter St Davids services.

    If the wires also went to Westbury/Taunton, that could mean a increase in capacity on the Cardiff - Bristol - Taunton corridor as the trains could be worked by some class 319's or maybe some new units ordered on the back of the crossrail order.

    Hopefully we will have further electrification projects after the great western is finished, ideal routes i would do are:

    • Coventry - Oxford - Reading - Bassingstoke

    • Thames Branches including Greenford & fill in on the North Downs Line
    • Cardiff Valley Lines & Newport - Crewe & Severn Tunnel Jct/Bristol - Birmingham

    • Exmouth - Exeter St Davids - Okehampton/Barnstaple ( be done as part of electrification of the Bassingstoke to Exeter line
    • Lines around Romsey ( This will free up class 158/159 units to go to ATW (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC (Train Operating Company))) & East Midlands Trains)
    • London Marylebone-Aylesbury/High Wycombe/Banbury
    [/list]

    London to Reading is only a very small portion of the routes to Taunton/Exeter/Plymouth/Penzance so I really don't think it's worth having bi-mode just for running on electric power for that bit, especially as the extra weight makes a bi-mode running on electric power 15%-20% more expensive than running an Intercity 125 under the wires. On diesel power, bi-mode IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) will probablly have worse fuel ecconomy than Voyagers (which are awful in this respect too). Keeping the 125s on the route would also add presure to electrify it. Severn Tunnel Junction, and Swindon, to Cheltenham would each convert 1tph to electric power, and allow divertions of PAD» (Paddington (London) - next trains) - CDF» (Cardiff - next trains)/SWA» (Swansea - next trains) trains. This leaves the only route bi-mode IEP makes any sence at all on as Paddington - Worcester/Great Malvern/Hereford, and I'd still suggest keeping the 125s on those trips for the reasons outlined above. One idea I had is to take the mark 3s from the 125s replaced by electrics and put them between new EMU driving cars on the Portsmouth - Waterloo route to replace 450s which would go to send SWT (South West Trains) 158s on Lymington and some currently un-electrified lines to Wales.
    Logged

    ----------------------------
    Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
    willc
    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 2330


    View Profile
    « Reply #606 on: April 02, 2011, 19:05:48 »

    Quote
    This leaves the only route bi-mode IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) makes any sence at all on as Paddington - Worcester/Great Malvern/Hereford, and I'd still suggest keeping the 125s on those trips for the reasons outlined above.

    There you go again. Do you ever actually take in anything anyone else says?

    The Cotswold Line needs through trains to and from London - they are why the line has been so successful for the past couple of decades. It wouldn't surprise me if more people travel on the Cotswold Line on a typical weekday than use those Saturday trains to Tenby and Pembroke Dock you think are so important over an entire summer season.

    For large parts of the day, the HSTs (High Speed Train) have far too many seats for the traffic on offer west of Oxford, which is why, for lack of anything better after the 180s left, the 166s have returned on so many off-peak services.

    Once the lines south of Oxford are wired, no-one in their right mind is going to allow DMUs (Diesel Multiple Unit) like turbos out there, because their performance characteristics will be no match for 319s and whatever trains Crossrail finally orders, never mind the IEP.

    Making people change at Oxford for much of the day is simply a commercial non-starter, so the only game in town for this route for a long time to come is the bi-mode IEP. The Cotswold Line will never be wired until Birmingham-Bristol and the Birmingham-Worcester lines get electrified and wires to Worcester are many years away now that LM (London Midland - recent franchise) is getting a brand new fleet of 172s for services via Kidderminster and the Birmingham-Herefords via Bromsgrove are in the hands of Class 170s that are only 10 or 12 years into their lives.
    Logged
    paul7575
    Transport Scholar
    Hero Member
    ******
    Posts: 5316


    View Profile
    « Reply #607 on: April 02, 2011, 20:04:36 »

    London to Newbury is only a very small portion of the routes to Taunton/Exeter/Plymouth/Penzance...

    Fixed your comment.

    Paul
    Logged
    Rhydgaled
    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 1500


    View Profile WWW
    « Reply #608 on: April 02, 2011, 20:07:02 »

    Quote
    This leaves the only route bi-mode IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) makes any sence at all on as Paddington - Worcester/Great Malvern/Hereford, and I'd still suggest keeping the 125s on those trips for the reasons outlined above.

    There you go again. Do you ever actually take in anything anyone else says?

    The Cotswold Line needs through trains to and from London - they are why the line has been so successful for the past couple of decades. It wouldn't surprise me if more people travel on the Cotswold Line on a typical weekday than use those Saturday trains to Tenby and Pembroke Dock you think are so important over an entire summer season.

    For large parts of the day, the HSTs (High Speed Train) have far too many seats for the traffic on offer west of Oxford, which is why, for lack of anything better after the 180s left, the 166s have returned on so many off-peak services.

    Once the lines south of Oxford are wired, no-one in their right mind is going to allow DMUs (Diesel Multiple Unit) like turbos out there, because their performance characteristics will be no match for 319s and whatever trains Crossrail finally orders, never mind the IEP.

    Making people change at Oxford for much of the day is simply a commercial non-starter, so the only game in town for this route for a long time to come is the bi-mode IEP. The Cotswold Line will never be wired until Birmingham-Bristol and the Birmingham-Worcester lines get electrified and wires to Worcester are many years away now that LM (London Midland - recent franchise) is getting a brand new fleet of 172s for services via Kidderminster and the Birmingham-Herefords via Bromsgrove are in the hands of Class 170s that are only 10 or 12 years into their lives.

    I did take it in, I've stopped suggesting a change might be acceptable on the 166 workings and am now saying that bi-mode IEP does make a bit of sence for that particular route but would perfer to maintain the through services using IC125s rather than new trains. I'll say it again, I am no longer suggesting that the through services be stopped.

    Those 170s and 172s, could they be re-geared to 75mph (as I think the London Overground ones are) fairly easily? If so they could be used on 150 routes to casscade the 150s onto pacer routes to allow the pacers to be withdrawn. That could leave the lines in question open for electric trains. It isn't likely to happen for several years, but the new stock doesn't necessarilly mean electrification is many decades away.

    EDIT: If a 2+8 IC125 is too many seats, maybe you could shorten them, which would probably make their fuel economy even better.
    Logged

    ----------------------------
    Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
    willc
    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 2330


    View Profile
    « Reply #609 on: April 03, 2011, 09:54:21 »

    On great, we can keep through services operated by trains that are already 35 years old and counting. I first travelled on an HST (High Speed Train) when they had been in service for two or three weeks in October 1976. If someone had told me then that they would still be in front-rank service in 2011 and people would be suggesting keeping them on for some further indeterminate period, I would have thought they were mad.

    And if I lived in Devon and Cornwall, I would be seriously concerned that no-one in government, or the railways, seems to have a clue about how to provide new express trains for the region. No matter how good the life extension work, no matter how much tlc the trains get, there is no getting away from the fact the HSTs are geriatric in railway terms, let alone for front-rank express trains.

    Quote
    If a 2+8 IC125 is too many seats, maybe you could shorten them, which would probably make their fuel economy even better.

    A 2+7 HST is too many seats off-peak, as for the idea that HST operation on the Cotswold Line is fuel efficient, you must be joking. There is an average running time between stops of about seven minutes on a typical service. The HST was designed 40 years ago for long-haul, high-speed running, not stop-and-start. That's why Turbos have returned in place of HSTs on lightly-loaded services here. As for shortening them, 4,500 horsepower for a five-coach train is a grotesque over-excess of power and a five-coach train which cannot be coupled to anything else would not be a lot of use on fast trains between Oxford, Reading and London in the peaks.

    Quote
    It isn't likely to happen for several years, but the new stock doesn't necessarilly mean electrification is many decades away

    Bit more than several years. First there's the Great Western main line, North West England and central Scotland to wire. Then, if the sums add up, the prospect of much of the South Wales network, Midland main line and HS2 (The next High Speed line(s)), which, if they all happen, are likely to tie up electrification capabilities for a decade and more. After that, the TransPennine routes would seem a sensible next step, to remove overweight dmus from steep climbs through the Pennines, and only then might you look at CrossCountry, to tie all the bits together.

    As well as all LM (London Midland - recent franchise)'s shiny new 172s, Chiltern also has a relatively young dmu fleet, which has plenty of years left in it (and in the case of the 165s is also of limited use elsewhere, like their FGW (First Great Western) cousins), so the Snow Hill/Moor Street lines around Birmingham won't be touched until rolling stock replacement falls due and Worcester will have to wait a very long time to see electrics - electric signals would be a novelty there, never mind electric trains. Remember that rolling stock replacement is a key factor in GWML (Great Western Main Line) and North West wiring going ahead and the same will apply in the case of the Valley Lines, should that happen.
    Logged
    Rhydgaled
    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 1500


    View Profile WWW
    « Reply #610 on: April 03, 2011, 10:37:39 »

    If you don't like old trains that brings me back to where I was before, suggesting a diesel loco to drag the IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.), I think I'd actually perfer that to keeping 125s on the route as it allows more spare parts for the 125s on the services to the south west. However last time I suggested that I was told you couldn't attach a loco at Oxford due to an unsuitable station layout. I've also been told that bi-mode for just the route in question wouldn't be a big enough order, but bi-mode only makes sence for this route, it makes no sence at all anywhere else. Therefore I think it's a choice of an IEP drag or an IC125 (if a 3-car DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) can handle the loadings, a 2+5 IC125 shouldn't be a problem in that respect). Having plenty of excess power should mean they don't need to use all of it very often, which should help fuel ecconomy a bit, a DMU like a 180 or Voyager would be better in theroy, but in practice their fuel ecconomy figures are grim reading. I want to avoid anymore trains like that, which bi-mode IEP would be, being built. You see how long the IC125s are dragging on for, introducing bi-mode IEP in 2017 and giving them a 35 year life would mean we're still running diesel trains on INTERCITY services in 2052, rather than having IC (Inter City) services diesel free in 2040 going by 35 years on the class 222s. Given that 2050 is the year set for some of the co2 emmision targets I think bi-mode IEP is very important to avoid, and what will happen to oil supplies in that time?

    What's to stop there being multiple electrification teams? More job creation, opertunity for some politics perhaps? I guess that probablly would be a no starter due to an increase costs greater than what I expect.
    Logged

    ----------------------------
    Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
    willc
    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 2330


    View Profile
    « Reply #611 on: April 03, 2011, 12:10:28 »

    I'm sorry, i must be missing something here. On the one hand, putting diesel engines under the floor of  trains for part-time use is wrong, yet buying large numbers of new high-power, high-acceleration, therefore high fuel-consumption, diesel locos (and providing the servicing facilities they would need) for use on just part of a train's journey makes more sense?

    On the Cotswold Line, with constant stops and starts, which big diesel locos don't like (just the same issues as with using the HSTs (High Speed Train) here - and I seriously doubt an HST's fuel economy doing such work is anything to write home about, however many coaches it has, compared with a supposedly thirsty 180 or Voyager) you would need perhaps six locos to maintain a basic hourly service between Oxford and Worcester, and allow cover for delays and failures, and maybe more to allow for the extra running time taken by services to Malvern and Hereford.

    That's an awful lot of expensive locos to move around five-coach trains for much of the day. In those circumstances, I think your average First Group board member would find obliging people to change at Oxford a far more attractive proposition than footing the running costs for all those locos for years to come. The passengers - and their MPs (Member of Parliament) - would not find such a situation an attractive proposition.

    Quote
    but bi-mode only makes sence for this route, it makes no sence at all anywhere else

    So what about Harrogate, Hull, Lincoln, Sunderland, Inverness and Aberdeen? All unlikely prospects for electrification for many years too.

    Quote
    if a 3-car DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) can handle the loadings, a 2+5 IC125 shouldn't be a problem in that respect

    Did you read the bit about the leg of journeys made by Cotswold Line trains between Oxford and London, where they form about half the express services each day? A 2+5 would be a serious capacity problem there for chunks of the day outside the traditional peaks - you can't just couple another HST on. That's why they use full-length HSTs or couple/detach Turbos at Oxford.

    Quote
    giving them a 35 year life would mean we're still running diesel trains on INTERCITY services in 2052

    No it doesn't. If wiring proceeds with some sort of gradual, logical pattern over coming decades, then you can simply stop using the diesel engines and remove them when they are no longer needed.

    I would love to see a proper long-term national elecrification programme but despite Lord Adonis's best efforts, something of this sort has yet to emerge, so we have to do the best we can in the circumstances, and if that's the bi-mode, so be it.
    Logged
    Rhydgaled
    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 1500


    View Profile WWW
    « Reply #612 on: April 03, 2011, 12:35:16 »

    I'm sorry, i must be missing something here. On the one hand, putting diesel engines under the floor of  trains for part-time use is wrong, yet buying large numbers of new high-power, high-acceleration, therefore high fuel-consumption, diesel locos (and providing the servicing facilities they would need) for use on just part of a train's journey makes more sense?

    On the Cotswold Line, with constant stops and starts, which big diesel locos don't like (just the same issues as with using the HSTs (High Speed Train) here - and I seriously doubt an HST's fuel economy doing such work is anything to write home about, however many coaches it has, compared with a supposedly thirsty 180 or Voyager) you would need perhaps six locos to maintain a basic hourly service between Oxford and Worcester, and allow cover for delays and failures, and maybe more to allow for the extra running time taken by services to Malvern and Hereford.

    That's an awful lot of expensive locos to move around five-coach trains for much of the day. In those circumstances, I think your average First Group board member would find obliging people to change at Oxford a far more attractive proposition than footing the running costs for all those locos for years to come. The passengers - and their MPs (Member of Parliament) - would not find such a situation an attractive proposition.
    You see, that's why I jumped to that conclusion before. Perhaps you could double service frequency with the turbos (and/or make passengers change at Reading rather than Oxford), it would probablly still be better to have a direct services as you say though. I never said new diesel locos should be bought, use the stacks of 47s, 37s and 60s we have lying around. They won't last forever of course, but hopefully the Chiltern line will get wires so 90s (or new electric locos) can be used to make Chiltern's 67s available. Any diesel locomotive geared for 90 or 100mph should be a bit more efficent than a DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) geared for 125mph/

    Quote
    Quote
    but bi-mode only makes sence for this route, it makes no sence at all anywhere else
    So what about Harrogate, Hull, Lincoln, Sunderland, Inverness and Aberdeen? All unlikely prospects for electrification for many years too.
    Drag them with diesel locos of course, that way you're not wasting loads of electricity carting diesel fuel and engines around under the wires. Sunderland (and most of the Hull services) are open access anyway, so they'll need to make their own arangements for stock, not the government. The further you go under the wires the worse having diesel engines, whether they are powering the train or not, becomes. I am finding it really hard to come up with a good solution for the services beyond Oxford, they occupy the middle ground with a fair amount of both wired and unwired track, so everything is a rather poor compromise. A few bi-modes for this route only does in some respects sound like a good idea, perhaps because it would only be a small number you could swap some XC (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) class 220 Voyagers for class 180s and put the debated pantograph cars into the Voyagers. Only problem is getting the open access operators to buy new stock to release the 180s.
    Logged

    ----------------------------
    Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
    JayMac
    Data Manager
    Hero Member
    ******
    Posts: 18894



    View Profile
    « Reply #613 on: April 03, 2011, 13:24:32 »

    Are you really serious about using almost life expired class 47 locos to do drags? As for 37s, well no FOC (Freight Operating Company) is currently using them so they're at best in warm store, at worst slowly rotting away. Both these classes will be over 50 years old come GWML (Great Western Main Line) electrification and would require major expensive work to make them compatible with the new stock.  Shocked

    Then you mention Class 60. A heavy, route limited, freight only loco geared to 60mph.  Roll Eyes

    I get that you don't agree with bi-mode, but your alternatives keep moving from crackpot idea to another. The only alternative is electrification of all relevant routes. And that's not happening.
    Logged

    "Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

    - Sir Terry Pratchett.
    onthecushions
    Transport Scholar
    Hero Member
    ******
    Posts: 977


    View Profile
    « Reply #614 on: April 03, 2011, 21:51:49 »


    I think that the IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) problem can be traced back to a ^one size fits all^ solution for the HST (High Speed Train) replacement and  ^falling between two stools^ phrase may be appropriate.

    It must surely be replacement for the 125^s ^ they were designed for a 15 year first line service life and entered service in late 1976. The same is even more true for the 47^s and 37^s - modernisation plan locos that can^t perform to modern standards, even with re-engineering.

    IEP in my view is under-specified for Bristol/South Wales as these services should qualify for TGC/ICE  specification rolling stock, even over the slower lines at the periphery.  If Swansea (or Weston etc) really is a serious IC (Inter City) destination then there should be no problem with wires. If not and services are near empty West of Cardiff etc, then all they can have is connections or a couple of daily hauled through services as happened in West  Yorks  just  after the ECML (East Coast Main Line) was wired in 1991.

    For the other destinations, a multiple unit solution seems necessary to cope with lighter outer loadings and the commercial need for through service to London. Here a hybrid formation solution might work; i.e a dmu at the country end, an emu at the other.  Now modern units have much greater tractive ability; emu^s have roundly double the power of 1980^s units (hence the sub-station crises!) and dmu^s can have a 750hp/570kW diesel under each car. They could therefore haul each other; the electric sections would have no power problem as there is no climbing and 125mph should be possible. The diesel sections are slower anyway and there, motored axles are the limiting factor for adhesion in acceleration and climbing.

    Just let^s not have 5-a side and no a/c to the Cotswolds (or any where else West of Crossrail)

    Happy Mothers^ Day,

    OTC
    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 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 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