GWML Electrification - Campaign against bi-mode

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

Of course they won't be nice, even if the solution is loco hauled as I think it should be, it is current practice that new trains have rock-hard airline seating with insufficent legroom. No, my campaign is for the enviromentally friendly option over reducing rail's green advantages.

What do you mean 'Of course...'? The things haven't been built yet. How can you possibly know? If you are using a crystal ball then please fire it up and let us know next weeks lottery numbers.

Oh the wonderfully Mk1's with their friction dampers that were totally useless the lack of yaw dampers, lights that dimmed and went out if the train stopped for more than 5 minuets, drafty windows with dripping condensation.  The upside was the free sauna from the steam heating, when it worked. yes they were the best ever trains ....... 

Not forgetting the seating on both MkI's and MkIIs. So soft it could almost swallow a small child whole! And softer seating is not necessarily a good thing if you have back problems. I have absolutely no problems after sitting in a current refurbed FGW^▸ (First Great Western) MkIII for 3 hours. Yes, the seat backs are maybe a little high, but there is nothing wrong with the pitch or the ergonomics.

[inspector_blakey]

Nope. I don't get it either. But the cranks love them because their unevenly sprung seats are "comfortable", there's "plenty of legroom" (unless someone's sitting opposite you) and all seats are arranged roune tables. I suppose the draughtiness, basic toilet facilities and ineffective heating all help to contribute to some misled sense of "nostalgia".

[ChrisB]

It is interesting to note that he mentions TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) having to source the rolling stock for some services separately, which is contradictary to the idea of ordering a single uniform fleet of bi-mode stock, even for totally wired routes, to reduce costs.

Couldn't this equate to the TOCs sourcing the locos to haul away from wires?......

[Trowres]

Oh! What joy this thread would bring to some of DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s rail people, should they ever stumble upon it. They got the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) toastrack HST^▸ (High Speed Train) right!

Well, if you choose to call me a nostalgic eccentric that's your privilege. However I will still prefer to travel on SWT^▸ (South West Trains)'s 159s to Waterloo when making business journeys to London.

As for taking the family out to the far south west...I've often been tempted by the idea, but with the trains on offer...no thanks!

[JayMac]

And I too am happy to occasionally take a SWT^▸ (South West Trains) 159 to Waterloo from Bristol. Price usually determines that choice, a cheaper route but longer journey time.

But, compared to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) MkIIIs I find the SWT 159 seating too soft and too low.

[inspector_blakey]

Oh! What joy this thread would bring to some of DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s rail people, should they ever stumble upon it. They got the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) toastrack HST^▸ (High Speed Train) right!

You might not share it but at the very least it's a valid point of view. I tend to agree with BNM, a lot of the hyperbole from the Mark I Appreciation Society complaining about the FGW HST doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Just for the record though, I'm probably better acquainted with mark I stock than most, and I do have a fondness for it; I'm a guard on a heritage line who works with mark Is. They're good vehicles, and were a real leap forward in terms of passengers facilities/comfort when introduced in the 1950s. But that was 60 years ago. They're ideal for pottering around on heritage lines at 25 mph but have no place on the main line these days. Much the same could be said for the earlier generations of mark II.

Getting back to the point, however, the crux of this thread is less to do with the arguments about FGW's HST refurbishment (rehearsed ad nauseam on this forum and in many other places too) than the ridiculously pessimistic attitude of many posters that "the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) trains will be crap, uncomfortable and have no space for luggage" before the details of the project have been announced, let alone any interior specifications published.

[eightf48544]

Getting back to the point, however, the crux of this thread is less to do with the arguments about FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s HST^▸ (High Speed Train) refurbishment (rehearsed ad nauseam on this forum and in many other places too) than the ridiculously pessimistic attitude of many posters that "the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) trains will be crap, uncomfortable and have no space for luggage" before the details of the project have been announced, let alone any interior specifications published.

i think the problem is because we've had the Voyagers and Mark 3 toastracks and the general pack them all in one coach philosophy that we expect the same with the IEP.

I agree the Mark 1s are past their sell by date but Mark 2e and original Mark 3 should be the minimum benchmark for the IEP.

[paul7575]

The IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) spec published way back when has quite a bit of detail on the interior requirements.  It certainly includes exact dimensions for legroom, ratios of airline and table seating, first and standard, luggage dimensions etc, etc

Have a look at section 6 of this, especially the table at section 6.4.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/ieptraintechnicalspecifi.pdf

So I think it's wrong to say there is no information about, although I can't guarantee that Hitachi won't have just copied a Voyager anyway...

Paul

 

[inspector_blakey]

In which case Table 2 on page 47, specifying seat pitches as well as ratios of bay to unidirectional seating, ought to put certain minds at rest.

[ChrisB]

That's the same table, guys!

Table 2 is in section 6.4 which is on page 47....

[inspector_blakey]

Mea culpa - didn't spot that!

[paul7575]

So I guess this campaign/petition has been binned now that it's clear it isn't a completely bi-mode fleet, and they are wiring to Cardiff and on both routes to Bristol.

What I find quite remarkable is how, across a fairly wide range of forums, people were so keen to take the Paul Clifton (of BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) South) specualtion a few weeks ago as 100% fact...

Paul

[Rhydgaled]

So I guess this campaign/petition has been binned now that it's clear it isn't a completely bi-mode fleet, and they are wiring to Cardiff and on both routes to Bristol.

What I find quite remarkable is how, across a fairly wide range of forums, people were so keen to take the Paul Clifton (of BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) South) specualtion a few weeks ago as 100% fact...

Paul

No, my campaign is not binned. Without electrification to Swansea the bi-mode disaster is still happening (unless they are going to put locos on at Cardiff, which from the BBC report I've read isn't what they announced). As my letter said going down the bi-mode route bins several of the advantages of electrification, including the most important, greenhouse gas emmisions.

I need suggstions on where to go from here, is it worth carrying on at the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) or should I direct my efforts towards the Welsh Assembly (who might also be able to provide for some local (ValleyLines) services to switch to electric traction)?

[JayMac]

Sorry, I'm a little confused here. What do you want to see with regard to the wires and rolling stock? Even if the wires did reach Swansea there would still be a need for some form of Inter-City diesel traction in other parts of the Greater Western franchise area, be it bi-mode, power car, or loco hook up.

I'd like to see the whole GW^▸ (Great Western) area under the knitting, but that is just not feasible financially. What I don't want to see is passengers having to change where the wires end or journey times needlessly extended by hooking up a loco to an electric set. A seamless switch to onboard diesel powered traction would appear to be the best compromise.

[ChrisB]

And whats the difference in emissions from a loco and emissions from the diesel part of bi-mode? I don't get your camaign either.