Potential bidders for the next Greater Western franchise

[whole diary]

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

Nearly all rail users want to see the minimum number of stops in the service between their boarding point and destination station. Ideally they would like to see no intermendiate stops. However this is living in cloud cuckoo land. The TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) has to weigh up a lot of factors in determining the stopping pattern of its trains and the result will never be ideal for anyone. The TOC's ideal would be no stops between start and end stations as every stop adds to fuel costs. It first has to consider what its franchise specification determines what it must provide and the present time is for all users to make their wishes known with a new franchise coming up. However those making their aspirations should not be disappointed when their wishes do not appear in the final spec. Its that old story - a necessary compromise and if you get just one out of a dozen aspirations in the final spec then you will have done well. Within its discretion, a TOC will include the requisite number of stops that will maximise its revenue and thus profitability whilst annoying as few of its users as possible.
Regarding Reading stops, this request to reduce the number of trains stoping at RDG^‡(resolve) is a hardy annual but as Mark Hopwood has pointed out (and most FGW^▸ (First Great Western) MDs before), if more trains had Reading stops deleted you would instead see more trains waiting in the distance to get through the station but unable to because of the train in front stopping at Reading. More capacity at Reading with the current rebuilding of Reading station might increase the possibility but with many 3 minute gaps in paths, there will still be the possibility that non-Reading stop trains heading out either side of Reading would be held up by a train that has stopped.
Re the suggestion that Cotswolds trains stop at Didcot, that would in deed be popular with many CL rail users. There are probably more CL users whose destination is Didcot than Slough. However the Slough stops were kept in after the last franchise spec because of the protests of Slough users losing some of there HST^▸ (High Speed Train) trains to PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains). Stops in CL trains at Didcot are just not feasible because to get into Didcot from Oxford means crossing other tracks and with more and more trains running there is too much congestion. This is why fast trains to London from Oxford run by FGW and Cross Country had their Didcot stops removed some years ago.

[The SprinterMeister]

Regarding Reading stops, this request to reduce the number of trains stoping at RDG^‡(resolve) is a hardy annual but as Mark Hopwood has pointed out (and most FGW^▸ (First Great Western) MDs before), if more trains had Reading stops deleted you would instead see more trains waiting in the distance to get through the station but unable to because of the train in front stopping at Reading. More capacity at Reading with the current rebuilding of Reading station might increase the possibility but with many 3 minute gaps in paths, there will still be the possibility that non-Reading stop trains heading out either side of Reading would be held up by a train that has stopped.

Thanks. I do feel like a lone voice sometimes trying to point this out. I'm sure however that someone sitting in an armchair knows more about the limitations of Reading than someone who spends a fair amount of time stopping at TR28 or TR36 due to a train standing in the down platform at Reading. And I think you'll find that if you ask people about non stop services you'll always get the responce that their home station should be the first calling point and b*gger anyone else.

Does a new livery on the trains cure all this? Does a 'refreshing change' overcome all the inherent pinch points on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) network? Ermmmmmm No.

[Rhydgaled]

I would be interested in understanding the clearance work for IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) from Swindon to Cheltenham. The line was laid out to broadgauge and the current tracks follow the same solum, so I am not sure where the pinch points would be. The Platforms are straight enough so I cannot see any side-swipe from the longer, thinner carriages. Presumably the only real issue is Stonehouse with its two carriage length platforms which really could do with lengthening. I expect Network Rail would charge about ^10 million to do that - my builder said he would do the pair for ^75k!!

Sounds like Swindon - Cheltenham might be fairly easy to clear for the over-long IEP coaches then. Good, IEP's acceleration would probablly handle an all-stops between Swindon and Cheltenham much better than an Intercity225. That said, the line from Cardiff through to Haverfordwest was orriginally broad gauge I believe yet I've read several opinions that there would be some significant issues for IEP clearance between Cardiff to Carmarthen. From what I've read, there also doesn't seem to be much hope of getting an IEP to fit to Pembroke Dock, which (along with wanting to get electrification as far as Swansea, avoid underfloor diesel engines west of Swansea on IC^▸ (Inter City) services and to avoid (dead) 'diesels under the wires' between Swansea and London) is why I think bringing IC225s to Great Western (or creating similar trains with mark3s and new locos) is important.

[The SprinterMeister]

Some of the calling patterns there are influenced by my desire to save IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) guage clearance costs by using Intercity 225s beyond Cardiff. Swansea, Carmarthen and Pembroke Dock (the latter two with a diesel loco taking replacing the class 91 beyond Swansea) alone wouldn't use enough of them, so there's a Bristol fast (via Bath) for IC225s to operate that wouldn't call at Reading if passing non-stop through Reading is allowed  and I tried to keep down the number of stops on the Cheltenhams so that they could be IC225 operated (instead of the Bristols) to save IEP clearance from Swindon to Cheltenham.

Why do you want to provide slower trains using older stock beyond Swansea and what do you propose to use as motive power to drag them with? The 67's as I understand it are all in use, unless your going to build a follow on order for 68's on the back of the DRS^▸ (Direct Rail Services Ltd) build former VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises) class 57/3's (2750 flywheel bhp / 2150 rail hp with no ETS^▸ (Electric Train Supply) demand) are all that is available. Please note class 57 has no multiple working or remote control capability and the fire system requires it to be manned while the engine is running as things stand at the moment. There is no room within the locomotive to install a TDM cabinet in the former boiler room as the rectifier cubicle occupies the available space. Even the ETS contactors are outside the locomotive located in the fuel tank battery box area.

I'm not sure I understand this fixation with 91's /  Mk4's anyway to be honest.

[Super Guard]

Regarding Reading stops, this request to reduce the number of trains stoping at RDG^‡(resolve) is a hardy annual but as Mark Hopwood has pointed out (and most FGW^▸ (First Great Western) MDs before), if more trains had Reading stops deleted you would instead see more trains waiting in the distance to get through the station but unable to because of the train in front stopping at Reading. More capacity at Reading with the current rebuilding of Reading station might increase the possibility but with many 3 minute gaps in paths, there will still be the possibility that non-Reading stop trains heading out either side of Reading would be held up by a train that has stopped.

Thanks. I do feel like a lone voice sometimes trying to point this out. I'm sure however that someone sitting in an armchair knows more about the limitations of Reading than someone who spends a fair amount of time stopping at TR28 or TR36 due to a train standing in the down platform at Reading. And I think you'll find that if you ask people about non stop services you'll always get the responce that their home station should be the first calling point and b*gger anyone else.

Does a new livery on the trains cure all this? Does a 'refreshing change' overcome all the inherent pinch points on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) network? Ermmmmmm No.

As someone who hangs out the window preying for TR28 and TR36 to be off most days, I can confirm you are not a lone voice on this

[Chris from Nailsea]

As someone who hangs out the window preying ...

What are you - a vampire?

[The SprinterMeister]

As someone who hangs out the window preying ...

What are you - a vampire?

Don't think so. He wasn't on the Up Sleeper tonight (and it's a full moon too)...
 

[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...) 

Having now seen the drawing in Rail, it seems to me that they've gone for a negative story about the loss of one of six tracks, whereas if they'd done a comparison with the 2007 Crossrail drawing I think they've actually provided an additional length of track 5 towards Paddington.  Surely the point is that with nearly all the relief line services heading towards Crossrail, including Heathrow Connect, there should be plenty of capacity anyway.  Presumaby ORR would have allowed for the infrastructure that was intended when approving the Crossrail track access options?

I see they also explicitly report that Paddington P13 will close - am I right in supposing that the probable benefit of this will be to turn P12 into a continuous long platform, of similar capability to any other main platform - and P14 will be the only short platform remaining?

[As an aside - perhaps this and the associated earlier posts should have been in the main Crossrail thread...]

Paul 

[Rhydgaled]

Why do you want to provide slower trains using older stock beyond Swansea

IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) trains, as planned, will have 26 metre-long coaches - FACT
26-metre carriges are not expected to be able to fit through Narberth tunnel - OPINION
Intercity 125s currently operate to Pembroke Dock, and hence do fit through Narberth tunnel - FACT
Mark4 carriges from Intercity 225s have a C3 mark on them and are a similar size to class 175 vehicles, which have operated to Pembroke Dock, and hence should fit through Narberth tunnel to serve Pembroke Dock - DEDUCTION FROM FACTS
IEP (especially the bi-mode) will be 'diesels under the wires' (although with the diesel engines switched off, they still add weight and power consumption) - FACT
Intercity 225s are electric, 140mph trains - FACT (ok so they need cab signalling to go above 125, but so does anything else)
The planned operation of IEP trains beyond Cardiff to Swansea and Carmarthen is likely to encounter clearace issues, which will cost money - OPINION
Underfloor diesel engines will degrade the quaility of service beyond the wires - OPINION

As I see it, this leaves a few options:

• Let DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) do things the way they are planning, leaving diesels under the wires to Cardiff and spending money on clearing the line from Cardiff to Swansea and Carmarthen for bi-mode IEPs running on diesel power*. Pembroke Dock & Tenby lose London trains and future potential for restoration of London services to Milford Haven and Fishguard trains is also lost
• As above, but with Intercity 125s running on diesel power all the way from Paddington to maintain Pembroke Dock - London services
• Ban IEP trains west of Cardiff, saving guage clearance costs and a number of bi-mode IEPs (which can be electric units for East Coast instead, saving the cost of a few diesel engines), and electrify to Swansea. This however requires use of old stock (mark4 or mark3 coaches) that will fit our loading guage, or a seperate order for new stock that fits. New stock likely to be too expensive, so use mark3s with new locos or Intercity 225s. Yes Swansea gets old stock, but it does get electrification which in my opinion more than makes up for that. Also:
  
  • Pembroke Dock gets to keep London trains without running diesels under the wires
  • Since the mark4s/mark3s should fit the existing loading guage, the potential for Fishguard/Milford - London services is retained
  • Passengers beyond Swansea get to keep loco-hauled trains rather than having underfloor diesel engines forced upon them

what do you propose to use as motive power to drag them with? The 67's as I understand it are all in use

Even if the 67s are all in use, some are on frieght duties and I think there are stored frieght locos (60s and 66s) out there. I'd want those used to drag East Coast's IEPs beyond the wires though, and they don't have the TDM they'd need to work with the DVTs^‡(resolve). The class 47/7s had TDM (the wrong kind though apparently) so the stored 47s out there should have room for the equipment. I'd suggest heavily refurbishing a few of them, giving them new engines (or perhaps engines taken from any leftover stored frieght locos that are newer than 47s) and TDM. That should do the trick of replacing the electric loco (which would be left at Swansea, where Landore could maintain them). I'd have a few diesel locos based in Bristol and Swansea, the Bristol ones for dragging IEPs to Westen-Super-Mare and working the sleepers (diverted via Bristol with electric traction from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to Bristol) and the Swansea ones could also be used on the Wales franchise's push-pull LHCS^▸ (Locomotive Hauled Coaching Stock) sets.

I'm not sure I understand this fixation with 91's /  Mk4's anyway to be honest.

I did suggest the alternative of push-pull mark 3 sets with new electric locos if you don't like the idea of using IC225s. Personally though I think it would be better to use the mark4s as they are slightly newer and already have the power doors needed to get them past 2020.

* Article here: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/02/25/better-trains-could-be-worse-for-west-wales-91466-23004740/ Personally I also have my doubts about one or two spots between Cardiff and Swansea on the main line, Neath station being one.

[The SprinterMeister]

Passengers beyond Swansea get to keep loco-hauled trains rather than having underfloor diesel engines forced upon them

what do you propose to use as motive power to drag them with? The 67's as I understand it are all in use

Even if the 67s are all in use, some are on frieght duties and I think there are stored frieght locos (60s and 66s) out there. I'd want those used to drag East Coast's IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) beyond the wires though, and they don't have the TDM they'd need to work with the DVTs^‡(resolve). The class 47/7s had TDM (the wrong kind though apparently) so the stored 47s out there should have room for the equipment. I'd suggest heavily refurbishing a few of them, giving them new engines (or perhaps engines taken from any leftover stored frieght locos that are newer than 47s) and TDM. That should do the trick of replacing the electric loco (which would be left at Swansea, where Landore could maintain them). I'd have a few diesel locos based in Bristol and Swansea, the Bristol ones for dragging IEPs to Westen-Super-Mare and working the sleepers (diverted via Bristol with electric traction from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to Bristol) and the Swansea ones could also be used on the Wales franchise's push-pull LHCS^▸ (Locomotive Hauled Coaching Stock) sets.

I thought we would get to the real reasons for Mk4 stock in the end..

As regards 47's only the original 47701 - 47717 batch had TDM. Early class 47 ETS^▸ (Electric Train Supply) conversions retained a steam heat bolier (dual heat). The ETS equipment on these was therefore carefully wrapped round the end of the new dual wound ETS / Auxilary alternator. It was from these 47701 - 47717 were created, the TDM cabinet going into the place of the steam heat boiler. Later 47's were electric heat only and the ETS gubbins went in the former boiler compartment. Therefore these locomotvies would be unsuitable for conversion to TDM remote control due to space considerations within the bodyshell.The higher numbered 47/7's did not have any form of TDM equipment fitted, the RCH cables on the end were provided for use with PCV propelling control vans where the driver in the PCV used the controller to provide a series of lights by the desk to tell the driver how much power to apply. 

If your going to repower any locomotive these days your options for power units are limited to Tier III off road compliant engines like the MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) 16V4000R43 or the Caterpillar lump going into the 68's. Reusing old freight loco engines to replace the Sulzer 12LDA28C in the 47's is out of bounds these days.

You cannot fit TDM into 67's for reasons of space, weight and axle load so therefore your restricted to either adding a batch of Eurolight (class 68) onto the end of the current DRS^▸ (Direct Rail Services Ltd) order fitted with TDM or using class 57/3 in hauled mode to move the Mk4 stock. By the way simply because it says C3 on the end it doesnt neccessarily follow that they are cleared or can be cleared for routes currently used by HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s, 158's or 175's. My understanding is that IEP on the East Coast augments rather than replaces the IC225 stock so the Mk4's may not be available in any case.

I suspect therefore the extent that Intercity services run to and beyond Swansea depends on how much of the SWML^▸ (South Western Mail Line) the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and WAG^» (Welsh Assembly Government - about) agree to spend on electrification and how much money can be found to knock structures around to let IEP run West of Swansea. Its just possible the DfT may see sense and restrict the coach length to 23 metres (at 2.74 metres external width) when they see the costs involved with hacking the railway around to fit 26 metre coaches. By the way just because it says C3 on the end of a Mk4 doesnt mean to say that it can be cleared to run on routes cleared for class 158, 175 and HST traction.

[Rhydgaled]

If there was space for TDM in those 17 locos, then I'd be supprised if a sufficently major refurbishment of any 47 couldn't make space for TDM (unless those 17 were slightly larger than the others).

If your going to repower any locomotive these days your options for power units are limited to Tier III off road compliant engines like the MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) 16V4000R43 or the Caterpillar lump going into the 68's. Reusing old freight loco engines to replace the Sulzer 12LDA28C in the 47's is out of bounds these days.

Ok, it would have to be new engines for 47s or new TDM-equiped locos then.

My understanding is that IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) on the East Coast augments rather than replaces the IC225 stock so the Mk4's may not be available in any case.

My understanding was East Coast IEP is supposed to replace the IC125s. However, my idea bars IEP west of Cardiff, so the bi-mode IEPs that are currently destined for that route would instead be electric and go to East Coast instead of GW^▸ (Great Western) as currently planned. That would allow them to free up some IC225s, but the total IEP order might still need increasing slightly to cascade all the IC225s (unless you split the IC225s between GW and EC, which I would prefer (London - Scotland should really be LHCS^▸ (Locomotive Hauled Coaching Stock) in my opinion) but I doubt the two half-fleets would be large enough to make maintenance managable.)

Its just possible the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) may see sense and restrict the coach length to 23 metres (at 2.74 metres external width) when they see the costs involved with hacking the railway around to fit 26 metre coaches.

But that would still be bi-mode IEP. Bi-mode IEP is even more daft than IEP having 26metre coaches in my opinion, at least if you have long coaches you can restrict the clearance for them to electrified lines (mainly, the odd short drag to Weston-Super-Mare shouldn't hurt much) and save most of the diesel-related expense.

[The SprinterMeister]

If there was space for TDM in those 17 locos, then I'd be supprised if a sufficently major refurbishment of any 47 couldn't make space for TDM (unless those 17 were slightly larger than the others).

Turning a class 47 into a class 57 constitutes in my book 'a fairly major refurbishment'

As we use AC main power generation these days you have to provide a traction rectifier to supply your DC^▸ (Direct Current) motors which means all the space in the boiler compartment on 57's is occupied with erm.. Rectifiers!. Not sure where your TDM box is going, on the roof or under the secondmans side seat? As mentioned before the class 57 ETS^▸ (Electric Train Supply) contactors / switching is outside on the bottom of the loco due to lack of space inside.

Its just possible the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) may see sense and restrict the coach length to 23 metres (at 2.74 metres external width) when they see the costs involved with hacking the railway around to fit 26 metre coaches.

But that would still be bi-mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.). Bi-mode IEP is even more daft than IEP having 26metre coaches in my opinion, at least if you have long coaches you can restrict the clearance for them to electrified lines (mainly, the odd short drag to Weston-Super-Mare shouldn't hurt much) and save most of the diesel-related expense.

You wouldn't hitch a diesel loco on to drag an electric train from Bristol TM^‡(resolve) to Weston Super Mare, too much faffing for the distances involved. Ten minutes delay on a twenty five minute trip? You wire to Weston, use Bi-modes or stop running through trains.

[Rhydgaled]

Turning a class 47 into a class 57 constitutes in my book 'a fairly major refurbishment'

Certainly does. In the past I've referred to my hypothetical 47s with new engines and TDM as 57/7s.

As we use AC main power generation these days you have to provide a traction rectifier to supply your DC^▸ (Direct Current) motors which means all the space in the boiler compartment on 57's is occupied with erm.. Rectifiers!. Not sure where your TDM box is going, on the roof or under the secondmans side seat? As mentioned before the class 57 ETS^▸ (Electric Train Supply) contactors / switching is outside on the bottom of the loco due to lack of space inside.

What are the advantages of having the engines generate a different sort of power to the sort the traction motors need? Does it really have to be done that way, or can you avoid the rectifiers (or is there any component that 47s had but is superceeded with smaller equipment these days) to make some space for TDM gear? Otherwise, it'll have to be new locos, unless there's a way to fit TDM and train electricity supplies to stored frieght locos, which I doubt.

You wouldn't hitch a diesel loco on to drag an electric train from Bristol TM^‡(resolve) to Weston Super Mare, too much faffing for the distances involved. Ten minutes delay on a twenty five minute trip? You wire to Weston, use Bi-modes or stop running through trains.

Note that I did say IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) to Weston, not the same thing as the IC225s with the 10-minute loco-swap at Swansea. With the IEP to Weston, there'd be no 'faffing around' taking one loco off and putting another on like there would be with the IC225s at Swansea, the IEP just runs up to the waiting loco and attaches. That'd take about 3 minutes surely, not 10. Heading for London would be a bit more of a problem (unless the loco can be driven from the cab of the IEP), but still wouldn't take 10 minutes (as I say, you should be able to swap locos on an IC225 set given that time).

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

Think we need to think about suppliers for new rolling stock very carefully....70018

[grahame]

Think we need to think about suppliers for new rolling stock very carefully....70018

Are we looking for aesthetics or practicality for the modern age and future?   I would be happy to see "Flying Dutchman" or "Fugly" running a financially sound, reliable, frequent, safe service on the line that serves our town.  I would be equally happy to see the service run by sprinters / pacers displaced by South Wales valley electrification, or by push-pull units with a Compton and 3 x A class carriages of goodness-knows what vintage which are currently being scrapped.

Has there been a particular issue with new 70018??

Reading a number of responses [to the consultation] I've been copied on, the concentration has been on service levels and providing good connections and practical systems to support them and ensure that all the ducks line up to make a big success. In fact I can't recall any that specify stock type - that's a luxury we can compromise on; the nearest one response came was in asking for trains that are uniform with others at work in the area, in support of looking after them with a common pool of engineering knowledge and the ability to share backup and standby units during heavy service / repairs, etc