A look forward in the South West?

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

Most of these are personal preference frankly. XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) services run full a lot of the time, and I see few complaints about the under-floor engines

I don't actually mind the engines on DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) much*, but others do. Do I have to quote Mark Hopwood again?

It is he that has ordered AT300s. 'nuff said. He can't be too bothered.

[Tim]

did he have much of an alternative?

[ChrisB]

yes, I think they could do what they did before & try & make it work with what the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) said they needed, stock-wise. The DfT could not easily penalise them.

[Rhydgaled]

Most of these are personal preference frankly. XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) services run full a lot of the time, and I see few complaints about the under-floor engines

I don't actually mind the engines on DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) much*, but others do. Do I have to quote Mark Hopwood again?

It is he that has ordered AT300s. 'nuff said. He can't be too bothered.

Was it his decision? He refered to underfloor engines as being unacceptable for the service, so has he changed his mind or have other parties somehow overuled him?

[ChrisB]

It's possible I guess that the First Board have told him what they want.....but that points to his thoughts being his personal choice, than a business decision

[broadgage]

Perhaps a carefully worded question in a customer survey has produced a result that could be interpreted as saying that customers PREFFER under floor engines rattling roaring and farting away.

After all, customer surveys show a preference for no buffet, for shorter trains, for higher density bus seats, and for reduced first class. So why not under floor engines ?

The purpose of customer surveys is not to find out what customers want, it is to justify downgrades that have already been decided on.

[ChrisB]

Have you noted that support on here too seems woefully low too?

[trainbuff]

Random Question  raised in RailWatch magazine recently.

Though the AT300's will have better acceleration it is believed their top speed will only be 100mph or so under Diesel power alone. I am sure these cancel each other out to an extent and savings can be had in maintaining much of the route between Newbury and Westbury, at only 100mph rather than some for 110mph.

In this case the what is the top speed of the Bi-mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) type train under Diesel traction alone?

If it is too low then it may impact an already busy portion of line from Bristol to Taunton/Exeter.

Anyone know the spec?

[IndustryInsider]

Both are designed for 100mph maximums when under diesel power I believe.  That presumably will allow for the best compromise on gearing ratios for top speed and acceleration.

[stuving]

In this case the what is the top speed of the Bi-mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) type train under Diesel traction alone?

If it is too low then it may impact an already busy portion of line from Bristol to Taunton/Exeter.

Anyone know the spec?

It looks rather contradictory:

3.8 Performance
TS261 The IEP Trains must have a maximum service speed of at least 125mph and shall be able to achieve that speed on the whole of the IEP Network. The requirement to be able to operate at 125mph applies during operation in Standard Mode and Locomotive Hauled Mode.
It is accepted that 125mph may not be achieved under the following circumstances:
^ on adverse gradients;
^ in excessive headwinds;
^ in the case of an IEP Train containing Bi-mode IEP Units operating in Self Power Mode;
^ in the case where more than 312m of the IEP Train length comprises of Electric IEP Units;
^ where any hauling Locomotive has insufficient tractive effort or maximum speed to allow 125mph to be achieved;
^ in the event that the braking performance of an IEP Train is incompatible with the infrastructure at 125mph due to the braking performance of a hauling locomotive;
^ under Adverse Infrastructure Conditions;
[plus two more to do with pantographs]

If the initial requirement really applies over its whole operating network, it must apply to a bimode beyond the wires. So what does that caveat about trains including self-powered bimodes mean? Perhaps it is intended to cover a specific case, but poorly worded so as to conceal that fact.

Perhaps more important, in practice, is this:

3.1.1 Train Operation
TS1823 The IEP Trains must be able to operate on the IEP Network at full line speeds as defined in TS261.

The highest linespeed not be be electrified is 110 mph, I think, between Bristol and Taunton. So to start with a diesel-powered speed of 110 mph would comply. But it hardly makes sense to entirely rule out further improvements at this stage, does it? Especially to do so only by implication.

Of course the train may be capable of more than the minimum requirement.

[IndustryInsider]

So in the summer peaks, 2x5car go to PNZ, simples

Exactly.  Or operate one of the seven 9-car trains on those services.

[Adelante_CCT]

Both are designed for 100mph maximums when under diesel power I believe.

Correct, the following is from the Hitachi website

125 mph for the Class 800/801 trains for electric operation and 100 mph for bi-mode operation.

[Adelante_CCT]

Out of interest, how far can the class 800s go, Newton Abbot/Paignton, or will they struggle before then?

[broadgage]

So in the summer peaks, 2x5car go to PNZ, simples

Exactly.  Or operate one of the seven 9-car trains on those services.

Does anyone really think that there will be spare stock lying around to strengthen  "summer peak" services. If a service is diagrammed for a single half length train then I predict that this is exactly what will be provided.
Previous experience of new shorter trains on other routes suggests that these will be procured in just barely sufficient numbers to cope with the AVERAGE passenger flow under ideal conditions.
I recall full length trains on the Waterloo to Exeter line being downgraded to 3 car DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit), it was stated that "flexible train length" was a great merit of the shorter trains and that "6 car or even 9 car trains could run at busy times" in fact single unit operation and severe overcrowding was the norm for at least 10 years. Whilst it is true that the 3 car and now some 2 car units do regularly run in multiple this has taken at least 10 years and perhaps 20 years and has barely kept up with passenger growth.
Broadly similar arguments apply to the (then) virgin voyagers, new and very expensive half length DMUs that resulted in overcrowding. These can indeed run in multiple to provide a full length train, but single unit operation is the norm even in the Summer peak, no matter how busy. "not enough spare stock"
"we cant provide extra trains just for a few weekends a year"
"there is plenty of room on some trains"
"we are a victim of our own success, more and more people are choosing our wonderful trains"
"you are recommended to book a seat"
And so on, maybe this lot of new shorter trains will be better, but previous actual experience does not fill me with optimism.

[ChrisB]

Don't they find stock for the summer service now?