Rumour of HSTs to operate Cardiff-Portsmouth discounted - probably Class 165/166 instead

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

I would assume GWRs^▸ (Great Western Railway) response top that DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) request might be in the publicly-accessible responses to the franchise consultation?

There's been no commitment as far as I know to that suggestion, however. I would expect to see it specified in the franchise doc.

[ChrisB]

Looks though as thisa has come up again though with discussions between DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) & GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) re stock provision for the delay in electrification & thus cascades being delayed....

From Rail Magazine

The Department for Transport, Great Western Railway and Network Rail are discussing how they can deliver passenger benefits in the current franchise to mitigate delays in the Great Western Main Line electrification programme.

RAIL understands that the biggest issue is passenger capacity. Without the ability to operate a full electric service on long-distance and commuter services, long-planned cascades of diesel trains - such as the Class 165/166 fleets to Bristol and the South West - may not be able to happen, leading to knock-on effects elsewhere.

GWR has tested short-formation High Speed Trains, and these could potentially be used on longer-distance services currently operated by multiple units, such as Cardiff-Portsmouth and Exeter-Penzance. They could also be used on some of the longer branch lines in the South West, such as Par-Newquay and Exeter-Barnstaple, although neither GWR nor the DfT would confirm this. A potential additional order for bi-mode AT300 hybrid trains could also be under consideration.
^For more on this story read RAIL 795 published

[Rhydgaled]

Surely a few loco-hauled 442s is the obvious answer.

Unfortunately not, this was posted on the WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) forum:

Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:40 pm

442s out of the running. Were considered, but a number of serious technical issues bar their use. rejected for TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) for the same reasons. I'm not going into great detail but Angel know what they are and if these units are to find further use, especially beyond 2020, very serious money would need to be spent. A pity but there it is.

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) has tested short-formation High Speed Trains, and these could potentially be used on longer-distance services currently operated by multiple units, such as Cardiff-Portsmouth and Exeter-Penzance. They could also be used on some of the longer branch lines in the South West, such as Par-Newquay and Exeter-Barnstaple, although neither GWR nor the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) would confirm this. A potential additional order for bi-mode AT300 hybrid trains could also be under consideration.

Barmy, absolutely barmy. If IC125s are being retained anyway, why not keep them at their full 2+8 length and use the 5-car AT300/class 802s on Cardiff-Portsmouth instead? The only possible issue I can see with that is that the 802s will presumably have 26m coaches like the IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), and thus might not be easily cleared to Portsmouth. Still, with their short length and underfloor engines, 802s are going to be more like regional express DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) than the IC125s.

[paul7575]

Your quote from wnxx is the same chap I was referring to in reply #5 earlier in this thread.    ISTM that Rail are rehashing a dud story.

As I mentioned back then, HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) cannot run on the St Denys - Fareham route without infrastructure works; thought to be the River Hamble girder bridge where the power cars are foul of the structure.

Paul

[ChrisB]

Your quote from wnxx is the same chap I was referring to in reply #5 earlier in this thread.    ISTM that Rail are rehashing a dud story.

Well, they've done that many times before....

[LiskeardRich]

Your quote from wnxx is the same chap I was referring to in reply #5 earlier in this thread.    ISTM that Rail are rehashing a dud story.

As I mentioned back then, HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) cannot run on the St Denys - Fareham route without infrastructure works; thought to be the River Hamble girder bridge where the power cars are foul of the structure.

What route would the footy specials have taken Fgw ran a few years ago from both Bristol to Portsmouth and Portsmouth to Swansea?

Videos of said services on you tube filmed from Eastleigh, hedge end and Fareham.

[Adelante_CCT]

That's the Chandlers Ford/ Eastleigh/Botley route, not the Southampton/St Denys/ Fareham route

[JayMac]

Yep. Wessex Sectional Appendix shows that Class 43s are not permitted between St Denys and Fareham.

[stuving]

I was expecting to read about the option of diesel-hauling class 801s, but haven't. Why not? They were designed for it, and AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) the capability hasn't been dropped even after Hitachi opted for bi-modes.

It would contribute most once the juice gets to Cardiff, but might be worth starting with it some way short of that. It would allow earlier operation to Swansea, and maybe Bristol. Of course, in terms of cascades, it would specifically liberate more HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train). It would also blanch blushes at DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) about idle SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) stock.

Are there spare locos around? There should be now, at least, and for a few years. A load of locos meeting NRMM IIIA were ordered ahead of its sunset date (2014), and in anticipation of a gap before any others will be ordered. There are NRMM IIIB engines available, but they are very expensive at the moment, so no-one will order one unless it's essential or the cost comes down. The operators complained they were not allowed to buy enough in those deals, but I think they were projecting demand forward quite a few years. In addition, any existing locos can have IIIB engines put in to keep them running. So there should be an adequate number for a few years yet.

[ChrisB]

There aren't currently any 'spare' 801s - they're allocated to a proposed timetable.

That's why there's mention of buying further AT300s in the article, I guess.

I doubt there are that many spare locos suitable for hauling the 801s too - on long-term basis, at least.

[stuving]

There aren't currently any 'spare' 801s - they're allocated to a proposed timetable.

That's why there's mention of buying further AT300s in the article, I guess.

I doubt there are that many spare locos suitable for hauling the 801s too - on long-term basis, at least.

I don't follow. The 801s are the electric ones, remember? So they will be unable to run all or part of their routes for some 2-3 years. And if the supply of locos is that tight, and if (as seems likely) no new ones are bought for ten years, then it's going to get desperate by then.

[ChrisB]

The current thinking is to covert them all to bi-modes, isn't it?

[stuving]

The current thinking is to covert them all to bi-modes, isn't it?

Exactly - it's being thought about. But, given the short-term (we hope!) nature of the "no electricity" problem, I would expect the diesel-haulage option to be thought about as well. 

[Rhydgaled]

The current thinking is to covert them all to bi-modes, isn't it?

Exactly - it's being thought about. But, given the short-term (we hope!) nature of the "no electricity" problem, I would expect the diesel-haulage option to be thought about as well.

I thought DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) had decided coupling a diesel loco to allow IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) to reach places like Hull would take too long, hence the bi-mode idea. Something about it DfT thinking it would take nine minutes to couple the loco, I don't see how it could take that long myself if they had suitable couplers installed for the job, given 158s can couple up much quicker than that at Machynlleth (I think it normally takes less than 3 minutes). However, as a short-term solution I imagine fitting locos with suitable couplers would be too expensive, and DfT are unlikely to want their new trains to make journeys slower than currently.

Anyway, there have been hints in this topic on WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) that MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) have recieved an order for additional diesel engines. Whether that means there won't be any 801s for Great Western or whether only part of the 801 fleet is being converted to bi-mode is not clear. Given that most diversionary routes are not included in the electrification programme and that the 801s have a single near-useless engine weighing them down (and adding maintenance cost) anyway making the 801s bi-mode might not be a terrible idea. Otherwise diversions would have had to be short-formed with the 5-car 800s (although a better idea would have been a mix of 9-car bi-mode and straight-electric sets from the start, with just a few 5-car bi-modes as 180 replacements).

[IndustryInsider]

I thought DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) had decided coupling a diesel loco to allow IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) to reach places like Hull would take too long, hence the bi-mode idea. Something about it DfT thinking it would take nine minutes to couple the loco, I don't see how it could take that long myself if they had suitable couplers installed for the job, given 158s can couple up much quicker than that at Machynlleth (I think it normally takes less than 3 minutes).

I should imagine that the 9 minutes included the time it would take to get the locomotive in position if it was coupling on, or out of the way if it was being detached.

Given that most diversionary routes are not included in the electrification programme and that the 801s have a single near-useless engine weighing them down (and adding maintenance cost) anyway making the 801s bi-mode might not be a terrible idea.

Two engines, I think.  And I believe they will prove to be far from 'near-useless'.