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.
So, magazines would be a good avenue to contact, thanks for the advice. Have you (or anyone reading this) any more useful suggestions? Also, some do agree with me. There are some users on RailUK Fourms who support my views, and, admittedly, others who support the bi-mode Multiple Unit side of the argument.
Here is a topic discussing the issue over there, and another. There's even a supporter of my views here in this thread:
I'm 100% for a loco and coaches train against multiple unit operation any day.
Be it like HST▸ '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.
I would of course object to having diesel and electric in the same loco in most cases, but again it might just be acceptable for the Hereford/Worcester route if you can't attach a loco for an
EMU▸ drag.
You've left this far too late - why on earth weren't you campaigning when the last Government initially suggested electrification on this route?
The last government's proposals were more sencible in most respects, they were to electrify to Swansea which would have reduced numbers of bi-modes. They did have flaws in their plans, like wanting to replace IC225s (which I did write a complaint about) and ordering new diesels/bi-mode for the Taunton (and beyond) trains rather than sticking with IC125s. Also I've only recently, since the
WAG» 's TrawsCambria consultation, really decided to try and make my voice heard. Anyway, until I knew what the new government were planning to do I couldn't really comment.
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?
I don't know exactly, but on a fourm (I think it wasn't this one) I heard Narberth mentioned. Also, there seems to be quite a few posts about expendature that will be needed to adapt stations on the main routes for the 26m coaches, and I doubt such works would be considered justified by the cash-stripped
DfT» if there are any clearence issues at all anywhere west of Swansea.
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 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▸ 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» 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.
I've seen a Pembroke bound
INTERCITY at Whitland once, and the platform was rather busy with passengers waiting to board. I've also seen a video taken from the service, which shows a substantial number of passengers dissenbarking at Tenby. If this is the norm, there's no way the normal class 150, Pacer or 153 would have sufficent capacity. That said, I doubt you need all 8-cars of the IC125, somewhere between 5 and 7 would probablly be enough. Remove the service altogether and I would imagine the 150s would cope, because Pembrokeshire might either loose the tourisim or see an increase in overflowing car parks. Again it is the enviromental point that matters to me.
As for uncoupling locos on the move, don't make me laugh. Sometimes it's hard enough to get Turbos to unstick standing in a station.
Daft though it sounds, the
GWR▸ did have slip coaches which they uncoupled on the move, and these didn't have power to get themselves out of the way. I therefore thought it might be worth suggesting doing the same to try and make EMU drags possible without extending journey times much (although you could probablly do the job in a 5 miniute station dwell time anyway).
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 - Bristol Temple Meads/Cheltenham
Given that the maximum line speed west of Oxford is 100mph, that is quite enough speed for diesel power. As for those suggestions elsewhere, end doors will do fine thanks - just so long as they have power doors to avoid all the time lost checking HST doors at present - this is rural England, not inner-suburban London. It gets a bit tedious in the depths of winter having all the heat sucked out of a Turbo every five minutes when the doors are opened at the next stop.
If end doors will do, that's good, it means the whole fleet can be built with them. However the question remains, could the bi-modes have different gearing while on diesel power, to allow the diesel engines to be less thirsty and still accelerate to 100mph quickly (at the cost of not being able to go faster on diesel)?
Click on the map to explore geographics
