GWML Electrification - Campaign against bi-mode

[whole diary]

[Hafren]

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.

It would make sense for Narberth to be the issue, given the tight curve through the station and the tunnel. Pembroke is also quite curved, but the other way so perhaps less of a problem.

Last time I used the PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-PMD service (last July) there was quite a large crowd forming on the platform and in the car park when it arrived at Tenby. Leaving Swansea around midday it also picks up quite a lot of local traffic. I wouldn't like to see all those passengers on the Pacers that became the norm on the local service last summer. It's not particularly busy after Tenby: if a good proportion of the problem is west of Tenby, perhaps a sensible solution would be to do any required works only that far, with the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) terminating there and connecting with a shuttle DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) to Pembroke Dock. That would require substantial changes to the timetable (but electrification is going to lead to changes anyway) and it might be a bit inconvenient for a HST to sit at Tenby for the turnaround time; there is a siding there, but I don't know about its length or condition.

[anthony215]

no way a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) would fit in the siding at Tenby. the 08:45 London Paddington - Pembroke Dock summer saturday is busy til it gets to tenby where the train empties. it does get a few passengers  on its return back but nothing like the amount the 10:00 Pembroke Dock - London paddington service gets.

 you might be able to do some work west of tenby especially to raise the line speed in parts and help reduce journey times, but i cant see anything being able to be done at narbeth .

I do agree that the wires should go to Swansea especially to reduce the Bi-mode tains which can be used on London - Cheltenham/Hereford/Bristol TM^‡(resolve)/Weston super mare services.

I think it is a good idea for there to be a extra train to Bristol TM as i have seen how busy that route can be at times providing that there is extra capacity to do it.

Hopefully network rail will be able to get funding soon to  tripple or quadroople the line from Parson Street - Filton abbey wood, which hopefully should reduce some of the congestions and the delays caused because of it.

[Rhydgaled]

Also another link over there which has a poll. Bi-mode got 7 votes, add all the votes for the other options and it looses by a fail margin.

[JayMac]

But it's a poll. Doesn't the highest percentage win? And the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) option is now tied for first place. Someone else just voted for it. I wonder who....... [whistles innocently].

Nice try in attempting to use a hugely inconsequential poll (with, at present, a total of 28 votes) on a rail forum to somehow further your argument.

[grahame]

Also another link over there which has a poll. Bi-mode got 7 votes, add all the votes for the other options and it looses by a fail margin.

Everything looses by that logic.   You need one to option to get over 50% by that logic or you'll keep extending the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) until it's 100 years old.  Mind you ... by that logic you might still have the Lord of the Isles in daily service, and we might never have got the HST ...

P.S.  I just took a look and IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s in the lead at the moment.  I rather suspect, though, that the Dft's experts, for all your criticism of their decision, are more technically informed than most of the voters in this poll.

[JayMac]

... by that logic you might still have the Lord of the Isles in daily service

That Daniel Gooch knew what he was doing though, and if Lord of the Isles was still running along with it's Iron Duke 4-2-2 classmates we'd at least have some very spacious passenger saloons! 

P.S.  I just took a look and IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s in the lead at the moment. 

Ha ha, well done that man (or woman) who voted after me! Wasn't you was it grahame? 

[paul7575]

Apparently Stuart Baker and Stephen Hammond have just signed up there - might just be a coincidence of course...

Oh and the first local employee of the Hitachi assembly plant in Newton Aycliffe has just signed up.  Mr Hoyahamaoverhere...   

Paul

[willc]

Daft though it sounds, the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) 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^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) drags possible without extending journey times much (although you could probablly do the job in a 5 miniute station dwell time anyway).

Steam-age slip coaches weren't attached to trains laden with lots of electronics and computer controlled-everything which might just go wrong when you try to unplug something like a locomotive.

And for the umpteenth time, here on the Cotswold Line, we do not want a reduction in the number of through trains to and from Reading and London nor, it would appear, does FGW^▸ (First Great Western) as the current operator, with stations from Moreton-in-Marsh eastwards set to get extra London trains from September. For large chunks of the day a five-coach train will do us just fine and there is no point messing around with locomotives on five-coach trains which can happily propel themselves. Nor do we want just a handful of eight-coach through trains a day with one of your precious diesels hooked on the front.

I have no idea about the blooming gearing on diesel power but I don't think the Government would have decided to buy these trains if they had the performance characteristics of a brick, which is unlikely with 2,200+ horsepower. Three-car Turbos go perfectly well here on half that. I expect Roger Ford, who pointed out the flaws in the earlier bi-mode incarnations of IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), will be busy doing his sums and will reveal all in Modern Railways shortly.

As for the idea that an entire fleet of trains should be designed on the basis of clearances in one tunnel on a branch line which is served by through trains for a few Saturdays each year, or because some people don't like under-floor engines (in which case it must be hard for them to do any travelling by train in much of this country), please spare us any more of this nonsense.

Has it ever occurred to you that some of the bi-modes you dislike so much could go to the South West on diesel power on summer Saturdays to free a couple of HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) to go to West Wales? Problem solved.

[JayMac]

IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) has pulled another vote. It's now a clear leader in this very important poll.

Peter Snow is dusting off his swingometer and David Dimbleby is settling in for an all nighter with a 5 pack of Mars Bars at his disposal.

"And now we cross to Vincent Hanna in Dunny-on-the-Wold, where the locals are currently making do with inadequate Class 166 Turnips......"

[grahame]

With 33% for IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) - 7% more than the next option - it's looking like a clear winner.   Parliamentary candidates have been sent to Westminster on votes of less that 27% of the people who have vote.   Of course, if the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) doesn't make a decision by 5th May, we may have to ask for the poll to be re-run on the single transferrable vote system. 

Oh - wait - the decision has been made.  Aren't some of us trying to shut the door after the horse has bolted here

[Rhydgaled]

And for the umpteenth time, here on the Cotswold Line, we do not want a reduction in the number of through trains to and from Reading and London nor, it would appear, does FGW^▸ (First Great Western) as the current operator, with stations from Moreton-in-Marsh eastwards set to get extra London trains from September. For large chunks of the day a five-coach train will do us just fine and there is no point messing around with locomotives on five-coach trains which can happily propel themselves. Nor do we want just a handful of eight-coach through trains a day with one of your precious diesels hooked on the front.

I have no idea about the blooming gearing on diesel power but I don't think the Government would have decided to buy these trains if they had the performance characteristics of a brick, which is unlikely with 2,200+ horsepower. Three-car Turbos go perfectly well here on half that. I expect Roger Ford, who pointed out the flaws in the earlier bi-mode incarnations of IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), will be busy doing his sums and will reveal all in Modern Railways shortly.

Right, you really think there is no alternative to the awful bi-mode idea to maintain services on the Cotswold Line, and that a 5 coach EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) (which wouldn't be able to propel itself where there is no electrification) dragged by a diesel would not allow the Cotswold Line service to be maintained. Ok, but that doesn't mean bi-mode can't be avoided elsewhere. The point of changing the gearing on diesel would be so you can achive the required performance on diesel without burning alot more fuel than the current IC125s and Turbos, that would mittigate one of the problems with the bi-mode IEPs to some extent.

As for changing the train spec to maintain Pembroke Dock services, yes if expensive modifications aren't needed anywhere else it would be better to use the alternative option of cascaded IC225s or maybe even IC125s than to shorten the IEP cars. However if there's a cost saving across all routes by shortening IEP coaches to 23m that might make a difference.

If bi-mode is the only way to keep the service level on the Cotswold Line, then to update the service list:

• London - Oxford - electrification and IEP EMU
• London - Hereford/Worcester/Great Malvern - IEP bi-mode
• London - Bristol Temple Meads via Bath - electrification and IEP EMU
• London - Taunton and beyond - INTERCITY 125
• London - Swansea calling at Reading, Didcot Parkway, Swindon, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff Central, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea - electrification and IEP EMU
• London - Swansea calling at Reading, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff Central and Swansea - INTERCITY 225
• Swansea - Cheltenham Spa - electrification and class 377 EMU (stock and Severn Tunnel Junction - Gloucester funded by WAG^» (Welsh Assembly Government - about))
• London - Cheltenham Spa - electrification and IEP EMU (what are the loadings like? perhaps split 2x 5-car units and have the other form the Bristol Temple Meads via Parkway service? - drag that EMU down to Weston-Super-Mare too maybe?)
• Maesteg - Ebbw Vale - electrification and class 377 EMU (stock and branches funded by WAG)

The INTERCITY 225 (fast) service to Swansea would be the one to extend to Carmarthen and Pembroke Dock - swap 91 for TDM fitted class 57 or 47 at Swansea to allow this. That means the 91 needs to be at the London end, so Swansea Landore depot could used for servicing the 225s. I'd suggest fitting IC225s with ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) between removal from ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) and introduction on GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), which should allow them to use their 140mph top speed if the roll-out goes ahead as was planned a while back. Also, is it possible to fit 91s with regenerative braking? If so do it alongside ERTMS fittment. If there are any  Bristol services that only call at Reading between the junction at Wooton Bassett and Paddington these could use IC225s as well if 30 trains is too much for an hourly fast PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) - SWA^» (Swansea - next trains) service.

Transfer East Coast's Hull and Harrogate services to Grand Central or Hull trains and it might be possible to give East Coast a standard fleet of just IEP EMUs, dragged by 57s, 67s or something to get to Aberdeen/Inverness.

As for the rest of you, ok so you upped the opposing argument on that poll (which as you say is rather inconsequential anyway). My point was that there are a greater number of supporters of my side of the argument than some of you were claiming, I was more trying to knock down that particular opposing argument than further my own.

[willc]

cascaded IC225s

Those trains are staying with East Coast. End of story. So again please spare us more of this ill-founded speculation about something that will never happen - put it on railforums, which seems to exist largely to indulge this kind of stuff, or write a letter to Mr Hammond and tell him how wrong he is.

[Electric train]

cascaded IC225s

Those trains are staying with East Coast. End of story. So again please spare us more of this ill-founded speculation about something that will never happen - put it on railforums, which seems to exist largely to indulge this kind of stuff, or write a letter to Mr Hammond and tell him how wrong he is.

Exactly, also why would we want 20+ year old cascaded trains when we can have shiny new ones

[Rhydgaled]

cascaded IC225s

Those trains are staying with East Coast. End of story. So again please spare us more of this ill-founded speculation about something that will never happen - put it on railforums, which seems to exist largely to indulge this kind of stuff, or write a letter to Mr Hammond and tell him how wrong he is.

Exactly, also why would we want 20+ year old cascaded trains when we can have shiny new ones

Because the shiny new ones might not be able to reach everyone because the coaches are too long. Using 225s in the way I suggest also avoids underfloor diesel engines and carrying the weight of the diesel powerplant around under the wires. Also, I am not speculating whether or not they might be cascaded, I'm trying to find a workable and not too expensive solution to the objections I have with DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s current plans for IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.).

<begin speculation>I have read speculation that IC225s might be cascaded to the Midland or Anglia main line at some point in the future, however I think these both have a 110mph max meaning if IC225s are ever cascaded anywhere, the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) makes the most sence, given that it has 125mph streches and could be the first non-HighSpeed line to take 140mph running.</end speculation>

[paul7575]

<begin speculation>I have read speculation that IC225s might be cascaded to the Midland or Anglia main line at some point in the future, however I think these both have a 110mph max meaning if IC225s are ever cascaded anywhere, the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) makes the most sence, given that it has 125mph streches and could be the first non-HighSpeed line to take 140mph running.</end speculation>

There was a plan to cascade the 91/Mk4s.  Back in early 2009 when the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) project was going to replace the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) electric fleet - but that has now clearly been cancelled as announced in parliament by Hammond.

By the way, the MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) is currently being improved to allow 125 mph running on some sections, with pro rata increases elsewhere, to take 10 mins off the time to Sheffield.

Paul