GWML Electrification - Campaign against bi-mode

[whole diary]

[Electric train]

The TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'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.

[inspector_blakey]

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.).

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.

[Rhydgaled]

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.

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.

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.).

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.

Here I disagree in places. I do agree on the impracticality of adding a loco (or swaping the one on a push-pull LHCS^▸ (Locomotive Hauled Coaching Stock) 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^▸ (Inter City) routes. One idea I've had is to only order all-electric IEPs, for both GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line), 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^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)) 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^» (Welsh Assembly Government - about) 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^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) drag on the remaining services, the ones currently using IC125s (I guess that's mainly the Hereford services).

[JayMac]

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.

That'd be the famously reliable 47s and 57s would it? Being 50 years old (or newer if you apply the 'Trigger's broom' logic!!!) by the time the new IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) trains are running.

[willc]

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^▸ (Inter City) services) to allow a loco swap or EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) drag on the remaining services, the ones currently using IC125s (I guess that's mainly the Hereford services).

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^▸ (High Speed Train) 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.

[IndustryInsider]

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

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^▸ (High Speed Train) is not needed.

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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^» (Welsh Assembly Government - about) 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?

[ChrisB]

There might well be, if WAG^» (Welsh Assembly Government - about) stick their hands in their pockets!

[onthecushions]

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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^‡(resolve) 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^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System).

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^▸ (in my humble opinion)) 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

[willc]

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^▸ (High Speed Train) in Standard Class

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^▸ (Great Western Main Line) expresses into the picture to make the maths work, and that means South Wales local services - which are WAG^» (Welsh Assembly Government - about)'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^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) wiring between Birmingham and Bristol, which freight could piggy-back on, and you should be able to make it work.

the novel and unproven ED IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) concept

What's novel and unproven about it? SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) 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^▸ (Direct Current) under the wires.

[Electric train]

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

[ChrisB]

And along the Cotwswold line & join @ Oxford - and up from PNZ to join @ PLY^» (Plymouth - next trains).

[IndustryInsider]

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^▸ (High Speed Train) in Standard Class

I thought busiest weekend services was clear enough.

My mistake - I misread your original post.

the novel and unproven ED IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) concept

What's novel and unproven about it? SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) 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^▸ (Direct Current) under the wires.

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?

[ChrisB]

The spec is on the dfT website somewhere

[Chris from Nailsea]

Yes: it's here, I think. 

[IndustryInsider]

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^▸ (Great Western Main Line).  After all, there'll be precious little non-electrified track on the GWML (or anywhere else the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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!