Potential bidders for the next Greater Western franchise

[whole diary]

[The SprinterMeister]

Total passenger minutes = 6555
Standing minutes (80 seats) = 250
Standing minutes (70 seats) = 550

So for a saving 300 standing minutes, you are committing people to 6005 minutes in squeezed seats rather than conformatble ones.

Yes but I always thought those IC70 seats were uncomfortable junk anyway. You had to be a funny shape or be good at slouching to get comfortable in them which is probably why most railway enthusiasts liked them.

In essence what your saying is that the longer distance trains, ie those beyond Oxford and Bristol should run rightaway through Swindon, Didcot and Reading and the Thames Valley commuters should have some sort of short distance Hi density jobbie of their own, possibly based on the proposed 15 minute interval Bristol services formed of Japanese Bullet Railbuses. That way the longer distance trains from Plymouth / Pzed / Swansea don't have to have so many seats per coach as the stuff used purely to shift 'disgusted of Goring' around.

[John R]

That's exactly what I suggested in my submission to the franchise consultation. It's currently a very unsatisfactory compromise between the needs of longer distance travellers and commuters from Swindon inwards. I'm sure a few 110mph Class 350s shuttling between Swindon and London in 12 coach formation would soak up much of the demand from Swindon, Didcot and Reading, and prevent the situation whereby full price travellers to South Wales or Bristol have to stand for the first hour out of London.  You could even tempt commuters to use them by offering cheaper season tickets than if they use the HSS^▸ (High Speed Services).       

[The SprinterMeister]

That's exactly what I suggested in my submission to the franchise consultation. It's currently a very unsatisfactory compromise between the needs of longer distance travellers and commuters from Swindon inwards. I'm sure a few 110mph Class 350s shuttling between Swindon and London in 12 coach formation would soak up much of the demand from Swindon, Didcot and Reading, and prevent the situation whereby full price travellers to South Wales or Bristol have to stand for the first hour out of London.

Problem with all that is going to be pathways as I see it. Your 110 mph 350's aren't going to get very far up the two track section from Swindon (Bourton / Shrivenham if your lucky) before a 125 mph Japanese Bullet Dromedary from Bristol or South Wales is chasing along behind it. From what I understand Line 5 & 6 from Ladbrooke Grove inwards are going to be dedicated Crossrail tracks and thats going to compound pathing extra things even more irrespective of who runs the GW^▸ (Great Western). The other thing being of course is that if you remove the Swindon / Didcot traffic from the proposed 15 minute interval Bristol - London service I doubt Bristol warrants a IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) train to Paddington every 15 minutes on its own with the other traffic taken out.

However if you call Bristol the end of the 'suburban' patch and run IEP every 15 minutes with saloons of no higher seating density than the current HST^▸ (High Speed Train) trailers and run 10 car in the peak / 5 car off peak that sort of sorts that out. 'Shop' style catering. Combine the Bristol and Thames valley flows using IEP means you can run most of the other services with lower density seated stock, saloon layouts in the layout of HST trailers as they were before refurbishment. As the Bristol services are supposedly going to be all electric as well as the Oxfords you just build your EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) only version of the Bullet Dromedary as high denisty stock as per current HST saloon layout. It cant stray out of its Patch as the wires aren't going beyond Newbury,Bristol or Oxford (except towards Wales when somebody makes their mind up how far to wire it and what if any diversionary routes to electrify). 

[bobm]

From what I understand Line 5 & 6 from Ladbrooke Grove inwards are going to be dedicated Crossrail tracks and thats going to compound pathing extra things even more irrespective of who runs the GW^▸ (Great Western).

According to the latest issue of RAIL (No 693) only line 6 will be lost to Crossrail BUT with the depot at North Pole coming into use for the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) trains it will only have access to the main lines so take up paths that side.  (Old Oak has the flyover so can access both the main and the relief lines).

[paul7575]

Is that the Rail that comes out this Wednesday?

That's a change to what was previously proposed, I think. The track layout that's been on ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)'s website for a while shows a four track section alongside the 'reversing facility' but only a relatively minor change would be needed to have a 5th track for a bit further out from Paddington.

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s18-xrail-appx2_single_line_GW.pdf

No reason why that can't have been altered since of course, so that isn't intended as a criticism of Rail.  (Yet...) 

Paul

[bobm]

Yes - came through the letter box this morning.  There is a double page spread on Crossrail.

[The SprinterMeister]

From what I understand Line 5 & 6 from Ladbrooke Grove inwards are going to be dedicated Crossrail tracks and thats going to compound pathing extra things even more irrespective of who runs the GW^▸ (Great Western).

According to the latest issue of RAIL (No 693) only line 6 will be lost to Crossrail...

I wouldn't read too much into anything in 'Rail' magazine, I gave up on it years ago when they started going on about 47's with traction main alternators in them. Daily star of the railway magazine world that comic is.

I can't see quite how you manage to bore twin tunnels under London and then constipate the thing at the Westbourne Park end by providing only one dedicated running line. As far as I know both lines 5 & 6 are going to Crossrail from Ladbrooke Grove although I see no real reason to provide it with dedicated lines at all as long as some sort of double lead Jn is provided to access Crossrail somewhere West of Westbourne Park.   

[John R]

That's exactly what I suggested in my submission to the franchise consultation. It's currently a very unsatisfactory compromise between the needs of longer distance travellers and commuters from Swindon inwards. I'm sure a few 110mph Class 350s shuttling between Swindon and London in 12 coach formation would soak up much of the demand from Swindon, Didcot and Reading, and prevent the situation whereby full price travellers to South Wales or Bristol have to stand for the first hour out of London.

Problem with all that is going to be pathways as I see it. Your 110 mph 350's aren't going to get very far up the two track section from Swindon (Bourton / Shrivenham if your lucky) before a 125 mph Japanese Bullet Dromedary from Bristol or South Wales is chasing along behind it. From what I understand Line 5 & 6 from Ladbrooke Grove inwards are going to be dedicated Crossrail tracks and thats going to compound pathing extra things even more irrespective of who runs the GW^▸ (Great Western). The other thing being of course is that if you remove the Swindon / Didcot traffic from the proposed 15 minute interval Bristol - London service I doubt Bristol warrants a IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) train to Paddington every 15 minutes on its own with the other traffic taken out.

However if you call Bristol the end of the 'suburban' patch and run IEP every 15 minutes with saloons of no higher seating density than the current HST^▸ (High Speed Train) trailers and run 10 car in the peak / 5 car off peak that sort of sorts that out. 'Shop' style catering. Combine the Bristol and Thames valley flows using IEP means you can run most of the other services with lower density seated stock, saloon layouts in the layout of HST trailers as they were before refurbishment. As the Bristol services are supposedly going to be all electric as well as the Oxfords you just build your EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) only version of the Bullet Dromedary as high denisty stock as per current HST saloon layout. It cant stray out of its Patch as the wires aren't going beyond Newbury,Bristol or Oxford (except towards Wales when somebody makes their mind up how far to wire it and what if any diversionary routes to electrify). 

At less than 4 secs per mile difference at top speed, I don't think the lower maximum speed is going to be a material difference, although I'll admit that the call at Didcot could prove more problematical, particularly if the intent was to keep the 350s on the fast lines (which I think would be needed to keep the overall time differential limited). So I'm not saying that there aren't problems, and you've raised some valid points. But I would challenge the assumption that Bristol is to be treated as the end of a long commuter run, with high density stock and calls every 10 to 15 minutes. 

[The SprinterMeister]

At less than 4 secs per mile difference at top speed, I don't think the lower maximum speed is going to be a material difference, although I'll admit that the call at Didcot could prove more problematical, particularly if the intent was to keep the 350s on the fast lines (which I think would be needed to keep the overall time differential limited). So I'm not saying that there aren't problems, and you've raised some valid points. But I would challenge the assumption that Bristol is to be treated as the end of a long commuter run, with high density stock and calls every 10 to 15 minutes. 

The Bristol commuters are being treated that way now as the layout of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s is optimised to the requirements of moving the volume of traffic from Swindon onwards towards Paddington. So moving them from Bristol to Padd in IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) trains with a saloon layout of no greater seating density than currently provided on HST standard class trailers is not a worsening of their lot and enables to the traffic to be handled with one type of train with no extra pathways to worry about. My concern with IEP is of course that with 26 metre coaches the actual cross section of the coach is going to be reduced to around class 153 dimensions or less to get them into Bristol TM^‡(resolve) in the first place. Lateral width is just as great a factor as seating pitch, a trip on a Voyageur will remind you of that fact.

Once you get the Thames Valley Traffic moving on the Bristol services as it does now the other longer distance runs can have saloon layouts with less seats and more legroom. 2 hour journey times being the cut off point. 

Yes 10 seconds a mile on the top speed doesn't sound a lot but remember IEP will accelerate a lot faster than the current HST does, particularly the electric only version with no whacking great bus engines or fuel tanks underneath to weigh it down. Its not going to be like the current HST's being left for dead by the Heathrow Connects as both trains come off the 30/50 restriction at Ladbrook Grove heading out of town. IEP will soon catch up any stray 350 units getting in the way if the service not run to Japanese levels orf relaibility or greater. And this is UK^▸ (United Kingdom) infrastructure we are talking about here. 

[paul7575]

My concern with IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) is of course that with 26 metre coaches the actual cross section of the coach is going to be reduced to around class 153 dimensions or less to get them into Bristol TM^‡(resolve) in the first place. Lateral width is just as great a factor as seating pitch, a trip on a Voyageur will remind you of that fact.

Another way of looking at this is that Hitachi's data sheet reckoned that their 26m coach train will be 2.7m wide, compared to a normal Mk3's 2.74m 

That's actually wider than a 444, which is quoted as 23.6m x 2.688m on the data plates; yet when I compared the interior width of a 444 at shoulder height, it's just the same as an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) (to within a cm or so).   What I suspect is that the external dimension is not as directly relevant to usable space as might be thought, and I certainly don't think the Voyager is a good precedent, as it fairly obviously has a lot of 'thickness' in the body, as well as a tilt profile, which IEP won't need and therefore won't have.

Paul 

[paul7575]

I can't see quite how you manage to bore twin tunnels under London and then constipate the thing at the Westbourne Park end by providing only one dedicated running line.    

That doesn't actually follow from what Rail is saying.  They could be saying there could still be room for 5 lines for the Paddington station approaches, widening out to 6 nearer the station AND 2 lines for Crossrail.   It really depends how they lay out all the various routes towards OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) sidings, as far as I can see.  The diagram I linked to earlier has various sections showing 7 tracks across the formation, so presumably it is wide enough?

Paul

[The SprinterMeister]

Another way of looking at this is that Hitachi's data sheet reckoned that their 26m coach train will be 2.7m wide, compared to a normal Mk3's 2.74m 

That's actually wider than a 444, which is quoted as 23.6m x 2.688m on the data plates; yet when I compared the interior width of a 444 at shoulder height, it's just the same as an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) (to within a cm or so).   What I suspect is that the external dimension is not as directly relevant to usable space as might be thought, and I certainly don't think the Voyager is a good precedent, as it fairly obviously has a lot of 'thickness' in the body, as well as a tilt profile, which IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) won't need and therefore won't have.

Paul 

The thickness of the bodyside is a matter of the construction and isn't related to the tilt. Other things such as the strength of the bodyshell and expected crashworthiness have more relevance to how much of the internal volume is used up by the coach structure. The Mk3 doesn't meet modern standards so it would be reasonable to assume the IEP bodysides will require to be thicker depending on what they are using to build the vehicles.

What is obvious with the Voyagers is that there is a massive amount of dead space above the window line and at roof height. There is a 8" cut out in the roof in the centre with a flat panel where the dynamic brake grid sits (to keep it within gauge) but no corresponding dip in the internal roof line or centre lighting strip.

2.7 metres is approximately class 158 cross section. I suspect however the IEP bodysides are going to be somewhat thicker than the lightweight aluminium construction used on the 158 though.

[The SprinterMeister]

I can't see quite how you manage to bore twin tunnels under London and then constipate the thing at the Westbourne Park end by providing only one dedicated running line.    

That doesn't actually follow from what Rail is saying.  They could be saying there could still be room for 5 lines for the Paddington station approaches, widening out to 6 nearer the station AND 2 lines for Crossrail. Paul

I'd wait and see what the other industry sources and magazines come up with first, Rail isn't noted for its in depth research and factual reporting. I tend to wait and see what Modern Railways come up with before passing judgement.

[FlyingDutchman]

I guess it will only be the mainline in Cornwall since the council is look at taking over the branch lines

[paul7575]

The thickness of the bodyside is a matter of the construction and isn't related to the tilt.

My bad punctuation, I didn't intend to link the two features.    I should have said the Voyager has thick walls; and it also has a tilt profile etc...

Paul