Great Western Coffee Shop

The Department for Transport has postponed a decision on a preferred bidder for the project (link below.)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dfcd4d42-e1a2-11dd-afa0-0000779fd2ac.html

Apparently, the latest delay is a consequence of continued negotiations between the department and the two remaining bidders. Negotiations may have been complicated by the decision by the Express Rail Alliance to submit two separate bids. A higher-priced bid follows the DfT specification to the letter, while a lower one uses established railway technology.

Again!

Does it seem to anyone else that this ridiculous ultra-lightweight, diesel-steam-coal-electric-wind-solar-hybrid-flywheel-hamster-powered, AWS-TPWS-ERTMS-ATC-ATP-compliant monstrosity is just never going to get built because of the massive complexity that must be involved in its design and construction? Complexity does not bode well for reliability after all: look at the laboured introductions into service that some of the recent multiple units have had, and they were incredibly simple by comparison!

Is it too much to hope that the HSTs could be allowed to carry on until this country's trunk routes are finally electrified? They're still some of the best passenger trains in the world and after the recent FGW refurbishment (which, sticking my head above the parapet, I'm a big fan of by the way) have several years' life left in them.

And electrification talk and the uncertainty it has created is indeed the elephant in the room here and said to be a key factor in the delay by Christian Wolmar in this week's new issue of Rail. And he adds that Lord Adonis is expected to deliver a report within a few weeks on routes most suitable for electrification.

If the talk on electrification turns into action, then it should indeed happen at just the right time to go from HSTs straight to electrics, from the middle to end of next decade.

It's probably getting to the point when no-one will bid for IEP anyway - or just offer electric-only trains. Hitachi with a Class 395 derivative more suited to long-distance work and Siemens/Bombardier an ICE3 variant, like those already sold to Spain, China and Russia. Both designs which are proven to work and won't need endless prototype testing, as proposed for IEP.

I think this sums up the current government. Screw the environment. Unsustainable airports are the obvious choice!

...and lets make everything complicated in the process.  Why have a simple supply contract when highly paid lawyers can come up with something much more complicated

It does seem like all the non-promises they've just announced about electrification and HSL's are just to head off criticism of the Third Runway on environmental grounds.

However, it would make sense if they are seriously considering an electrification programme and a North-South HSL, to delay the decision on IEP until those choices have been made. Hopefully then the convoluted IEP's that inspector blakey so elegantly describes will not need to even be considered.

Maybe the same ones that worked out how to privatise the railways? :D

Well, looks like a third runway at Heathrow then.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/15/bbaaviation-theairlineindustry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/15/bbaaviation-theairlineindustry)

But there are a couple of interesting things hidden in amongst this news story: allegedly we're going to get High Speed 2 (London to Brum via Heathrow), although noone seems to be too sure who's footing the bill, and it would appear that when Adonis's electrification report comes out the GWML might be included in it...


So, looks like the farcical IEP just got even more pointless.

See also link below for main Heathrow discussion.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=4138.msg33198#msg33198

I'm going to suggest looking up a guy called Adrian Montague.......

....and then I'm going to leave it there  ;D

Too much consoltation. Not enough doing.

Hello, new member here.

Was not the original HST2 , now known as ICEP a proposal to build new long distance diesel trains as replacements for the existing HSTs?

It seems to be turning into an EMU with the possibility of limited diesel power/detachable diesel locomotives or power cars.

Whilst in theory electrification is a good thing, especialy considering oil depletion and likely price rises, it must be said that in the UK electric railways are not reliable.
The wires will come down in windy weather, hot weather will cause them to expand and sag, cold weather will cause them to break, and in coastal areas, stormy weather will result short circuits from sea water.

Therefore what is needed, is a relativly small fleet of high speed, long distance, diesel only trains.
The design should be based on the existing HST design, incorporating the minimum of new technologly to ensure rapid building, and reliable operation.

A power car/locomotive should be provided at each end NOT a single locomotive and a cab the other end. Like the existing HST this would provide "get you home redundancy" in case of failure of one power car. To proceed at reduced performance and delay other services is far preferable to stopping entirely and blocking the line.
In order to minimise development costs, perhaps the power cars could be based on the proven class 67, useing as many standard components as possible.

The coaching stock should be a standard modern design, 12 coaches fixed formation, with a proper internal fit out for long distance use (buffet, full restaurant, luggage space, facing seats with tables etc.)

Flexible train length should be avoided, since in practice flexible =shorter (remember the plan to replace some HSTs with a 5+5 adelante in order to provide more seats? in practice of course a single adelante was used to provide fewer seats)
Tilt should be avoided since it is more to go wrong and results in a cramped interior.
Anything "world beating" or "leading edge" should be avoided as it will delay entry into service, and is more to go wrong.

If the route is eventually electrified, only the power cars would be surplus to requirements or used for some secondary purpose, the coaches could just as well be hauled electricly. A DMU would of course be rendered obsolete by electricification.

Welcome to the forum, broadgage

What a pathetic excuse not to electrify. In France, Germany and Japan, they also have stuff like weather and coastlines. People talk as if the laws of physics are different on this side of the channel, when in fact it's the laws of finance. If we would only spend enough money to do the job properly in the first place, we could have a decent railway system and save money in the long run.

You're are right electrification is not unreliable, and Other countries cope with far worse weather than we have. They have typhoons in Japan,more snow in parts of Germany and hotter weather than us down in the South in France.

It is interesting that we are hearing far less about the wires on the ECML now the North of London Eurostars are no longer running and it's only 91s most of the way. But it is now the WCML
with the VIP Pendolino service where the eproblem are occurring.

I wonder if it's the higher speeds with two pans rather than the single pan for which both routes were designed. Other than of course slower EMUs in multiple.

French LGV lines seem to designed for 4 pans per train ie two TGV sets coupled.

The problem with any electrification system is the method of supplying the power.

What are the relative benefits of overhead power vs third rails? Is there another method?

Should not this country consider Hydrogen Fuel Cells to power trains. They are cheaper and more reliable than Deisel or Electric trains systems.

Agree entirely, other countries have weather and theire largely electric railways work fine even in conditions much worse then experienced in the UK.

However in the short term I feel that getting the existing electrified lines to work reliably should be a higher priority than cheaply/badly electrfying the great western routes.
I cant imagine any decision being taken taken until after the next election, then allow at least 5 years for nimbyfests, another 5 years for technical planning and another 5 years for actual installation.
It therefore appears unlikely that great western routes will be electrified before 2020, and 2025 might be more realistic.
Hence the nead for some proper, new, full length, long distance "self propeled" trains, which in effect means diesel powered.
The existing HSTs though excellent in many ways, are simply inadeqaute on busy services, hence the need for a limited number of new 12 coach intercity trains. The HSTs being retained for less busy services and/or secondary main line services.

You might be right, but if there was any political will at all in this country then it should be possible to electrify the GWML quickly and efficiently and properly, using existing technology. Surely the electrification of an existing railway can't suffer much from nimby's -- the trains will actually be quieter.

Building a new generation of highish-speed diesel self-powered trains just because we can't get our act together seems to me to be totally perverse. And because no-one else is doing it, there's a greater risk of it all going wrong and becoming the new "Advanced Passenger Train"....  :o

Third rail power supply is not generally regarded as suitable for long distance mainlines.
The limited clearences mean that the voltage has to be quite low (less than 1,000 volts) this requires a much larger current to supply the power.
The combination of low voltage and high current means that substations have to be located at relativly frequent intervals which adds substantialy to costs for both equipment and land purchase.
Also the HSE are opposed to any significant expansion of the third rail network, they dont like the presence of a lethal voltage exposed at ankle height.

Fuel cells are very bulky and very expensive in sizes suitable for locomotive use, much bigger than a diesel engine.
Hydrogen fuel is also very bulky and problematic to store and handle, it must be stored either as a supercold liquid in a very expensive insulated tank, or as a gas under great pressure in special ultra high pressure tanks,
Refueling would  be a complex operation, requiring sophisticated facilities, not like diesel fuel that simply needs a pump and a hose!
However the main objection to the use of hydrogen is that hydrogen is not a source of fuel, but a means of storing or transporting energy.
Hydrogen must be manufactured, there are two means of so doing on a large scale.
Firstly by the chemical treatment of natural gas, this is a well understood process, but natural gas suffers from the same problems of declining supply and rising prices as does oil. If natural gas is to be used, better to use it directly as liquified natural gas rather turn it into hydrogen.
Hydrogen can also by produced by electrolisis of water, this requires a great deal of power and there are already doubts as to the sufficiency of UK generating capacity. To electrify and use electricity directly would be more efficient.
Finaly having produced the hydrogen, it must be either compresed or liquified which requires considerable expensive plant, that also requires energy to run it.
Then convince the nimbys that it is safe to store hydrogen at rail depots etc! it is probably no more dangerous than petrol, but try convincing anyone of that. And it probably is more dangerous than diesel fuel.

Wasn't the High Speed Train a temporary measure because we couldn't get our act together sorting out the long term solution (the APT, subsequently Class91/Mk4)??!

Dithering about this kind of thing is not new- for instance, after the war in the UK, it was decided that a lovely modern fleet of steam engines should be built. Within 20years, these were replaced by the most hit and miss diesel / electric project ever imaginable. There were an incredible amount of expensive turkeys in the modernisation program that did not complete their full life cycle (class 17, 23, 28, 29, hydraulics, early series AC electrics) and also those that needed substantial work (some of which, like the class 29 remained turkeys!) to be moderately effective.

Meanwhile in places like Italy and Switzerland, widespread electrification has been a reality for nearly 100 years in some places. Doesn't that make you feel that arguing a case for GWML electrification is more than a little bit embarassing? I think we need to get a little bit of "doing" going here and less procrastination.

How did I guess that the U-turn back to electrification would end up being used as an excuse to do nothing in the short term.

Daniel

The HST was indeed designed as a stop gap measure until electrification, although I don't think it was envisaged that electrification of the core mainline routes on the network would take this long! Fortunately it has turned out to be a superbly designed and built train, as I have said above, which is widely regarded as one of the best passenger trains on the planet.

Now that it looks like electrification may be on the way (although of course we await the gory details to be published by Andrew Adonis before too much longer) I would argue that it is time to knock the IEP turkey squarely on the head before the farce of its procurement goes any further, and let the HST finish doing the job that it has performed so admirably: plugging the gap until electrification!

Roger Ford is his usual pithy self in February's Modern Railways comprehensively debunking the dual mode IEP as being the most inefficient train ever built. Apparently in the spec the diesel engine will be rquired to maintain full speed on even electrified lines.

Whilst in the same issue Ian Walmsley makes one of the best cases for loco hauled IC trains I have ever read to be used on exisitng electric lines with a modified modern European electric loco and a suitable diesel for off the wires. He also has some very interesting thoughts on seats and window alignment plus luggage space.

His son of the Mk3 would be a fantastic coach.

Of course his idea is not new. From the early 60s until 1974 all Anglo Scottish trains changed locos at Crewe. Also NSE changed locos 86/47 in around 3 minutes at Cambridge until Kings Lynn was electrified. With auto couplers it ought to be quicker.

Then what about the Southern's Waterloo Bournemouth Weymouth service until Weymouth was electrified,. 4REP pushing 2*4TC in rear to Bournemouth with a 33 coming on the front to take 1 or 2 TC onto Weymouth. The REP then shunte over to the up platform whilst the 33 pushing the train from  Weymouth pushed the TCs onto the REP ready for it pull the train to Waterloo.

Network Rail has carried out a survey of the reliability, running cost, levels of maintenance etc  per passenger/Km of various forms of traction, electrification came out way on top as being the most reliable in terms of the number of train failures than diesel, need far less maintenance than diesel and the number of OHLE incidents per passenger Km are extremely low its just that when they do happen it makes the headlines.  To counter the OHLE dewirement headliners NR are looking at going away from the headspan type of construction (that's the type of construction used on the MML, ECML and much of HEX) to separate mast and or portal construction (a modern version of what is used on the WCML) because when there is a rip down on headspan it tends to affect all lines where as on separate mast and or portal it tends to only affect one line, the only problem is headspan is cheaper and quicker to effect than separate mast and or portal.

The current thinking and asperations of the Network Rail Board, senior engineers and operations is that the future is electric and at 25kV

But, just to emphasise how useless we are in this country at actually getting on and doing things, this was the settled view of the British Railways Board when the Modernisation Plan was approved in the 1950s, abandoning the 1500V DC system (Woodhead and Liverpool Street-Shenfield) adopted by the LNER.

And to correct something said previously, third rail can go up to 1200V DC. The Manchester-Bury electrification by the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, since replaced by trams, used this system for 70-odd years. In Germany, the Hamburg S-Bahn uses it to this day. But 1200V is the upper limit that is practical for third rail and much above 100mph reliable current pick-up is not guaranteed.

TGVs only run with one pantograph raised per set while on LGVs, at the rear, because of the need to keep oscillation in the contact wire to a minimum to prevent wires snapping. The front power car is supplied by a cable running the length of the train along the roof.

In theory this is a very good idea. Like that car the James May from top gear went to drive in America.

It would be environmentally friendly. I'm lead to believe the only emission is water, which could be piped off to a supply tank for the train toilets.

But as someone else has suggested the cells are heavy and therefore reduce accelaration. You need specialist storage facilities. But as it's a new technology, I don't think the British Government will be willing to spend the money trialling the idea. UK Wide electrification is much more likely to happen. But isn't strictly environmentally friendly as we need to remind ourselves where the supply actually comes from..!

(http://showmethehoney.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/coal-power-plant.jpg)

Just replace that picture with a nuclear power plant or the Severn Barriage, and the power is renewable.

Except for Eurostar (which is basically a trinational TGV designed for UK loading gauge) which has both raised but becaus eteh train is so long the oscillation is not a problem