Wow, what a lot of posts on this topic recently! I've just been trying to catch up, too many points raised to quote everything I'd like to reply to, so I won't directly quote in most cases:
1.
why can't Network Rail manage the electrification? many and varied reasons, probably, but this month's "Modern Railways" claims that over 50% of the cost overruns on the ScotRail electrification projects are down to compliance issues. Apparently, in 2014 the minimum electrical clearance considered safe was raised from 125-150mm to 200mm, and then raised again to 370mm when
EU» regulations were adopted in 2015. It does say though that other factors have had a larger impact on costs on the Great Western. So yes, whoever it was, Health & Saftey is part of it.
2.
Bi-mode leading to canceled electrification? politically, I think (hope?) it will be very difficult to cancel the wires that have been promised previously. It does raise serious concerns for future electrification however; is there anyone left who still thinks the existance of bi-mode trains would improve the case for extending electrification? Diesel isn't the cleanest of power sources, I hope expansion of electrification will continue, but it isn't looking that promising at the moment.
3.
Loss of Turbo cascade and retention of 11x IC125sI think these two are connected. There's been a long-running topic on the
WNXX▸ forum reporting FirstGWR's various attempts to plan the cascade in the face of electrification delays. The plan seems to change every week, but one suggestion is that a number of 2+4/2+5 IC125s may be made TSI-
PRM▸ complaint for operation into 2020 and beyond. Where exactly these would be used seems to change as well, but it always seems to be somewhere between Cardiff and Penzance.
4.
All bi-mode IEP▸ fleet As I like to keep reminding pepole, the class 801 IEP 'electric' (although it is, from a operational perspective, an
EMU▸ ) is, from an engineering viewpoint, itself a bi-mode design. It still has a diesel engine on-board, it justs lacks the horsepower to be useful for regular service in diesel mode. Thus, when the
GWML▸ is eventually wired through to Swansea, Bristol, Oxford and Newbury, the only difference is that the trains will be a little bit heavier and actually have enough power in diesel-mode for S.Wales services to be diverted via Gloucester and Bristol services via Westbury if required due to engineering works. Even better, a that point somebody might find a partially electrified route elsewhere that some the bi-modes could be cascaded onto (although the 26m vehicles might make that a bit more difficult, and the complex IEP contract might hinder cascades also) and get a new fleet of truely pure-electric trains for the GWML, leaving enough bi-modes with
GWR▸ to handle diversions.
Now for the direct quotes:
and also the politics of serving the Welsh capital will have a bearing.
And I was just thinking to myself "It would surely be too cynical to suspect that this is partly down to post-Brexit Union-preserving politics."
Wrong country, it is Scotland that needs pampering to save the union, as far as I know (which probably isn't much) we're not threatening rebellion here in Wales; though I'll probably be angry if the full extent of promised GWML electrification, including Paddington-Swansea (which, we have previously established on this topic, the
UK▸ government promised to pay for), is not wired by the end of
CP6▸ .
Can we keep the HST▸ to Hereford please.
No you can't, such is progress.
There are those of us who are really fond of our current trains - be they class 125 or class 153. However, if we campaigned to keep them and won would rapidly find our love for them drowned by people complaining about old trains on their line ... to say nothing of increasing maintenance costs and failures over the years ahead, and a real problem is we'd refused an upgrade on the back of a bigger order and wanted a special build later.
Really, the new trains should be designed to be something we could look forward to, then there would be no reason to campaign for retaining stock that is really too old to keep in service (other than a few for preservation, I'd be quite upset if an IC125 (at least 1) and an IC225 aren't preserved). However, when we are looking at Intercity trains running underfloor diesel engines for many hours, the removal of hot food for standard class passengers (although the competion, motorway service stations, seems to be going the same way) and potentially rocks-for-seats (the latter still to be determined) action should be taken.
So to summarise, the new trains will be slower than the old ones when on diesel power which is a large part of the mileage.
I'm not so sure that's the case in reality, at least not to materially affect journey times. Their initial acceleration is likely to be better, even if not so good after the 40mph mark
Going back to the possibility of reduced-formation IC125s on Cardiff-Taunton (or Plymouth-Penzance or whatever it is this week), I still think the superiour low-end acceleration of a multiple unit makes more sense for stoppers like Cardiff-Taunton; if the IC125s can be kept going medium-term as ScotRail and now FirstGWR seem to think a better solution would be to keep the IC125s (full-length) on Paddington-Plymouth/Penzance services and use the 5-car 800s/802s on the local stoppers instead.
Click on the map to explore geographics
