Some time ago, the model IEP▸ timetable was posted here, as a PDF I think. I've searched back and can't find it again. Could anyone better at searching than me remind me of the link, please?
I've not done any searching, but I think the file you are reffering to was an .xslx, which I have saved on my laptop. I've uploaded it attached to this post, along with a .xls version on which I have attempted to highlight the use of the (in my opinion far too many) 5-car sets. This second file, I hope, explains in part why I keep going on about the huge numbers of 5-car bi-modes (and complete lack of 9-car ones) for the Great Western at almost every oportunity.
I am, quite frankly, horrified at the apparent widespread reduction in capacity despite:
- The current, controvertial, measures to increase the capacity of the entire present fleet of IC125 trains and
- The range of high-profile enhancements (electrification being the most obvious) which are bound to increase the number of passengers trying to use the new trains
Only Bristol seems to get away lightly, with most of the current services maintained at a reasonable length alongside frequency upgrades. I suppose Cheltenham may or may not work out alright, depending on whether patronage spreads out to match the spreading out of the capacity (5-car every hour instead of alternate 2+8 IC125 and 2/3-car Sprinter).
----------------------------------
Specifically bi-modes
Which (for Great Western) are currently all planned to be just 5-car, and will be replacing the IC125s on the Cotswolds not just the 180s.
On page 240 of the
Western Route Study Draft f October 2014 or Consultation, in
Appendix B
Rolling stock assumptions it lists the bimodes as:
| Name | Class | Description | Assumed capacity | Location/service assumed to
operate in 2019 ITSS |
| 10-car bi-mode IEP | SET▸ | Super Express Train - two Electric Multiple Units
with five carriages fitted with diesel engines to
operate on routes without electrification coupled
together to form a train with ten carriages | Seats: 630 Seats
+ standing: 756 | Hereford via Oxford to London Paddington,
Cheltenham via Kemble to London Paddington |
AFAIK▸ , that's always been the party line - 10-car trains that can run half-length out of the peak if you are sure they won't get to full.
Of course you may still suspect there won't be enough 10-car trains. And you may also wonder how well they will serve short platforms.
I certainly suspect that, and all the evidence I've seen seems to support that suspiscion. I'm afraid, very afraid, that my fears will be proved true. The 10-car trains in the draft timetable are pretty much limited to peak services in and out of London. Many off-peak services which are currently IC125s are reduced to a single 5-car and even some peak services in and out of cities other than London. I also am concerned about the short platforms and portion working (although that seems quite limited on the draft timetable) with non-gangwayed stock such as IEP.
It won't - see above from the Western Route Study...2 x5cars in the peaks.
As said above: only the
London peaks seem to be completely covered by long trains. I suspect many of the off-peak services that are currently IC125s also load to more than 315 passengers at some point in their journey too. There is of course the question of what will happen in the case of the Severn Tunnel being closed given the lack of 9-car bi-modes. Presumably, you could transfer passengers for Weston-Super-Mare onto a
DMU▸ (or bi-mode IEP) at Bristol and use more of the 'electric' IEP units between
PAD» and
BRI» to release some bi-modes to enable you to extend the Cheltenham services through to Swansea, but with all the bi-modes being 5-car that would likely mean having to squeese all the Cheltenham and S. Wales pax onto 5-car workings.
There seems to me no solution unless DfT» can be convinced that it better to have some (more) spares for strengthening, covering failures, specials etc, plus meaning the rest of the fleet has to be less intensively used.
Plus any unit should be able to couple and work in multiple with any other unit and have corridor connections.
The DfT certainly need to be convinced that the IEP deployment strategy needs modification. While some spares would be useful, I can't see corridor connections being possible on a 125mph unit and in any case it's too late to change the design of IEP. My view is that new orders should either specify corridor connections (
UEGs▸ ) or be planned such that multiple working is not required (such as the Thameslink fleet, which comes in long-enough formations that multiple-working is very unlikely).
I thus believe the best possible outcome would be an ajustment to the ratio of driving vehicles to intermediate cars on the Great Western bi-mode fleet to allow longer formations. If I've done my analysis well enough, I reckon the 32x 5-car diagrams need to be reduced to 9-12 5-car diagrams (for workings where a 180 would cope, essentially) and supplemented by 16 9-car diagrams. That's 86-92 driving vehicles diagrammed (rather than 100) and 265-274 intermediate cars (rather than 222). Clearly, the total number of diagramed vehicles there (351-366) is higher than the 322 currently destined for the Great Western, but surely something creative can be done with the
ECML▸ ,
MML» , IC225s and IC225-replacement-IEPs to allow some IEP vehicles from the EC order to be transfered to the
GW▸ .
If I knew how to work social media (which I don't), I might try to launch an online petition. As things stand though, I wouldn't get enough pepole to see it for the government to take any notice, so I'm stuck with trying to figure out how to write DfT a letter that is (a.) short enough to actually get read and (b.) effective enough to actually spur them into action to sort this out.
Click on the map to explore geographics
