GWML Electrification - Campaign against bi-mode

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

What's the top speed of the 319s?.....If they want these to use the fast lines, that'll be the defining factor.

[Tim]

Thanks, CfN.  125mph diesel and at least 125mph electric then.  I can't help but think the 125mph diesel element should be reviewed in the light of electrification of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line).  After all, there'll be precious little non-electrified track on the GWML (or anywhere else the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) will operate) with speeds of over 100mph, so I'd have thought it would be better all round to gear it to a 100mph top speed or 110mph at most.  We'll see what the boffins can come up with though!

I agree.  Why waste money on a 125 top speed when the line speed doesn't match.   the electric top speed is interesting though.  can be extended to 140 with some minor modifcation.  I wonder if that will take place after ERTM has been installed?

[inspector_blakey]

What's the top speed of the 319s?.....If they want these to use the fast lines, that'll be the defining factor.

100 AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know). Although obviously that's only an issue in areas like the Thames Valley where they are likely to share track with the new trains. Better than the Turbos' top speed of 90 at least. I don't know how the two compare in acceleration but I would guess that the 319s have the edge given that they're electric.

[IndustryInsider]

I don't know how the two compare in acceleration but I would guess that the 319s have the edge given that they're electric.

Yes, by quite a margin.

[JayMac]

But keeping the diesel element at 125mph will at least allow schedules to be maintained when the knitting falls down or there is a supply failure.

[IndustryInsider]

But keeping the diesel element at 125mph will at least allow schedules to be maintained when the knitting falls down or there is a supply failure.

How often would that actually happen on 125mph stretch though?  Better in my opinion to have a train with a slower top speed and better acceleration for those variable speed limits between Cardiff and Swansea and the Cotswold Line.  However, a question for those with more technical knowledge than me - would a Bi-Mode train with such a variable speed limit be able to be geared for a 100mph top speed in diesel mode without compromising the performance with a 125-140mph top speed in an electrically powered mode?

And it still wouldn't enable the schedules to be maintained as these 125mph electric trains are apparently going to chop 22 minutes off the present diesel 125mph trains schedules between Bristol and London.  Though whether that will be achieved with the same station stops as current trains remains very doubtful in my opinion!

[Electric train]

Not sure if a full 22 mins will be achieved but HST^▸ (High Speed Train) are very slow off the mark they really don't find there legs until about 60 mph also the slam door make for longer station times if the 1/3 2/3 door option and not end of coach is selected then boarding times should be quicker

[smokey]

I'm 100% for a loco and coaches train against multiple unit operation any day.

Be it like HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s with Loco at both ends, maybe a loco could be Diesel & Electric powered, but for ride comfort who want's engines hammering away under your feet!

Something that seem's to be totally overlooked with Diesel units is this.

Say a timetable calls for 12 train units in service then a fleet of
16 Multiple units is required to cover Breakdowns and Planed Maintenance.

However have Loco & Coaches you still need 16 loco's but only 14 coaching sets, as coaches require FAR LESS maintenance than Locos or Multiple Units.

[ChrisB]

From what Matthew Golton said yesterday, this campaign will go nowhere now.

[JayMac]

But keeping the diesel element at 125mph will at least allow schedules to be maintained when the knitting falls down or there is a supply failure.

How often would that actually happen on 125mph stretch though?  Better in my opinion to have a train with a slower top speed and better acceleration for those variable speed limits between Cardiff and Swansea and the Cotswold Line.  However, a question for those with more technical knowledge than me - would a Bi-Mode train with such a variable speed limit be able to be geared for a 100mph top speed in diesel mode without compromising the performance with a 125-140mph top speed in an electrically powered mode?

And it still wouldn't enable the schedules to be maintained as these 125mph electric trains are apparently going to chop 22 minutes off the present diesel 125mph trains schedules between Bristol and London.  Though whether that will be achieved with the same station stops as current trains remains very doubtful in my opinion!

The original technical specifications available here show no difference in acceleration whatever method of power, and distribution of that power, was used. I'd imagine that the change in specification for the bi-mode to underfloor diesels will not adversely affect that stated acceleration of 0.75 m/s/s (metres per second, squared).

[Rhydgaled]

The through services to beyond Oxford, mostly being 165/166s, could probably be cut back (by requiring a change at Oxford, except on the IC^▸ (Inter City) services) to allow a loco swap or EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) drag on the remaining services, the ones currently using IC125s (I guess that's mainly the Hereford services).

Spare us the guesswork. If your approach was adopted, you would kill the nearly 20 years of growing traffic on the Cotswold Line at one fell swoop - and completely waste the investment in redoubling. That growth has been built on the back of through trains to and from Reading and London, which now constitute almost the entire service on the route, whatever type of train is working them. Rather more important and lucrative than the odd train west of Swansea. If the Valleys lines are electrified, then Swansea and Maesteg will surely follow sooner, rather than later, but just doing the main line west of Cardiff on its own makes no sense, operationally or financially - even if it is a nice idea.

If bi-mode is what's needed to retain the Cotswold Line's through trains, then so be it - we already have under-floor dmus anyway and would welcome back 180s should they return, so what is the problem? For passengers here, having a comfortable train, with an interior layout suitable for long-distance services, is the priority, not whether there's a diesel engine or a transformer under the floor, and outside the peaks, peak shoulders and the busiest weekend trains, something the size of an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) is not needed.

As for diesel locos, I well remember all the time that was taken at Wolverhampton attaching/detaching diesels and electric locos on Shrewsbury services in the 1980s (10 minutes was allowed for this) and wouldn't want to see that kind of carry-on return, never mind that Oxford station's layout is utterly unsuitable for it - and it's a lousy place to change trains as well.

Ok, I'll hold my hands up and admit that I don't have the local knowlage etc. to know for sure where you can get away with reducing the number of through services (NOTE: I mean reduce, not remove) or where you can swap locos easily. Since swapping one loco for another wouldn't work, would Oxford's station layout allow for an EMU drag means of operation instead, perhaps with the wires extending a short distance beyond the station and slipping the diesel off in-motion on approach to the station?

The 5 car bi-mode MU^▸ (Multiple Unit) concept brings the possibility of some out of the box train planing. It would be possible for example to run more frequent IC 5 car trains from West Wales and couple / split them at Cardiff and run as a 10 to London.

Nope, that wouldn't be possible. In this case it is not the bi-mode but the 26m issue, which apparently would prevent the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) trains running into West Wales. willC complained that reducing through services to Paddington in one neck of the woods would be a bad idea, but 26m coaches would, after IC125 expiry, make any and all through services to West Wales completly impossible (except for using my IC225 loco-swap plan). You are all completly within your rights to try to protect your patch by objecting to service reductions and I'm completly within my rights to protect mine, and the enviromental advantages of rail, by campaigning against a 26m bi-mode IEP.

I hope we can discuss this together and arrive at a workable solution which retains a very good level of service to all the areas concerned while minimising the enviromental impacts.

I can't help but think the 125mph diesel element should be reviewed in the light of electrification of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line).  After all, there'll be precious little non-electrified track on the GWML (or anywhere else the IEP will operate) with speeds of over 100mph, so I'd have thought it would be better all round to gear it to a 100mph top speed or 110mph at most.  We'll see what the boffins can come up with though!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, a question for those with more technical knowledge than me - would a Bi-Mode train with such a variable speed limit be able to be geared for a 100mph top speed in diesel mode without compromising the performance with a 125-140mph top speed in an electrically powered mode?

I'd be interested to know this too. Perhaps if bi-mode really is the only option for Worcester (and beyond) trains, gearing the units to run on diesel at 100mph and electric at 140mph, if it's possible, might fix some of the enviromental concerns. Building on this, and going from a suggestion elsewhere that 1/3 and 2/3 doors might be better on this route, a bi-mode version of the Javelins (designed so all the diesel equipment can be removed to cut the weight down to that of an equivelent EMU) could be ordered just for this route, with true INTERCITY (end vestible door) EMU stock ordered for the PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) - Bristol Temple Meads/Cheltenham and ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) routes and the IC225s put on the PAD - Swansea/West Wales workings (as their 23m coaches might just squeese into West Wales).

From what Matthew Golton said yesterday, this campaign will go nowhere now.

What did he say?

The original technical specifications available here show no difference in acceleration whatever method of power.

Either:

• All the claims electrics accelerate faster than diesels are lies or
• The electric IEPs are being severly constrained to let the diesels keep up and the 20 odd mins journey time savings are lies or
• The IEPs on diesel mode would have a crasy amount of horsepower and therefore will drink fuel like there's no tomorrow, making my point about them being an enviromentaly desasturous desision take on an even greater magnitude (I think Voyager fuel consumpsion figures are bad, this could be much worse). If you can gear the diesel for 100mph without impacting on the electric mode, you might get the acceleration with a more reasonable fuel consupsion.

[inspector_blakey]

Where's the pinch-point beyond Swansea that you think would prevent a 26m vehicle working to west Wales, and if you don't mind me asking what's your source for that?

My honest opinion (and this is from someone who travels to and from west Wales regularly, since my parents' nearest station is Whitland) is that the loss of the summer Saturday HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) to Pembroke Dock wouldn't be a huge issue - the times I've used them they are pretty lightly loaded beyond Swansea, and particularly so beyond Carmarthen, and frankly an HST is extremely ill-suited to that sort of rural branch line with frequent stops and short platforms. It really doesn't make sense in my view to design the entire IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) around maintaining that sort of vestigial service that must only run about 30 times a year, and to which there must be an alternative solution.

If a 26m car length would also prevent the daily HSTs to Carmarthen then that could be a bigger issue, especially since the weekday 0730 CMN-PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) service gets pretty busy with people travelling to work in Swansea. Having said that, the 1745 PAD-CMN is carrying plenty of fresh air after Cardiff and all but deserted once it's left Swansea.

[grahame]

My honest opinion (and this is from someone who travels to and from west Wales regularly, since my parents' nearest station is Whitland) is that the loss of the summer Saturday HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) to Pembroke Dock wouldn't be a huge issue ...

I think we had a thread a while back about the loadings on Summer Saturday Only services to Newquay.   We're a long way away from Summer Saturdays being the busiest day of the week, with long queues waiting at Paddington for all-reserved trains to Newquay, Kingswear, Minehead and other destinations, with trains from Manchester, Leeds, Wolverhampton and other cities in the Midlands and North weaving in to make their weekly appearances in Weymouth, Paignton, Eastbourne and Margate.    Are we, indeed, at the point where the standard service that runs Monday to Saturday though the rest of the year would be more appropriate for the extreme branches than one which actually reduced the number of trains / stops at some stations as a slowly accelerating HST creeps through?

The picture isn't totally one of loss of routes.  I note the new Bristol to Paddington service via Trowbridge that's due to start ... has to be an HST ... and wonder if that's just for a few years, or whether an IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) bimode unit will be used?  Clearance wise, could there be a problem at Dundas or Avoncliff, as there is said to be with 165 / 166 units?   How about the platforms at Trowbridge, which will need to allow IEPs through if the route via Chippenham and Westbury continues to be used as a diversionary route when the Berks and Hants isn't available.

[ChrisB]

From what Matthew Golton said yesterday, this campaign will go nowhere now.

What did he say?

He indicated that this contract was to be let well before Xmas, if delivery is to be in 2016. THat doesn't give you long to generate a head of steam of support for your campaign. I have yet to see anyone agree with you here, nor you post in more influential fora or magazines, nor anyone else post / write elsewhere with your wishes as a subject.

You've left this far too late - why on earth weren't you campaigning when the last Government initially suggested electrification on this route?

Bear in mind that HMG will not welcome any suggestion that increases the cost of this project - we are in hard times - so no chance of stock with differing specs (save electric or bi-mode).

Good luck & I look forward to seeing your letters (written with knowledge of this network, not just your local area) appear in the rail magazines & national press.

The main problem I foresee is that patronage of the railways is on the up, not static, and it seems that HMG aren't ordering sufficient number of coaches / trains. I foresee very rapid overcrowding....

[IndustryInsider]

The original technical specifications available here show no difference in acceleration whatever method of power, and distribution of that power, was used. I'd imagine that the change in specification for the bi-mode to underfloor diesels will not adversely affect that stated acceleration of 0.75 m/s/s (metres per second, squared).

Surely that figure is pretty irrelevant though?  The entire acceleration envelope is what matters, not a maximum acceleration figure, which for all we know could be the figure from 0-10mph.