West needs better deal on transport, says MP (Exeter Express & Echo 26/08/11)

[whole diary]

[trainbuff]

It is a fact that Plymouth is the largest city west of Bristol.

I think you'll find that the largest city west of Bristol is Glasgow.

Yes! Lol. I mean to the South West and in the South West Peninsula!!!!

[matt473]

Population in city is useless to compare as to whether somewhere requires a decent intercity service as it there may be many feeder services from outside the local area that lead to onward travel. With how usage on lines increasing greatly thanks to a better service as a result surprisingly of the pacers, better services from the West with reasonably priced feeder services could lead to a great increase in usage. Look at Bristol for example, how many of the people on the hst's to London travel from other local or nearby stations for onward travel? A far greater number no doubt than jsut the local population that use the service to travel.

I think that faster and more facilities such as catering on long distance services on the long distance services on with fgw such as Swansea, Plymouth etc. along with even better connections and prices with feeder services could greatly increase overall usage on other services. Of course this would only work properly with a single company running services so could work in South West but not in South Wales because of different TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company).

[The SprinterMeister]

Not too difficult to make the 0553 leave at 0600 and arrive in London at 0900 like it used to.

It wouldn't arrive in London at 09:00 reliably though would it? It doesn't now although to be fair Southcote Junction - Paddington seems to be the main problem.

[The SprinterMeister]

Unlike now it was once considered important enough by the original GW^▸ (Great Western) railway to warrant major investment in 1937 west of Exeter ie the Dawlish avoiding which would have been opened in 1941.

Which is the only way you will get 25Kv overhead powered electric trains to run reliably all year round to Plymouth and beyond. All the talk of electrifying along Dawlish Sea Front is just that. Talk and it will never happen. If IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) is to run to Plymouth, you'll need  to either divert the line or use either dual mode IEP or a push pull LHCS^▸ (Locomotive Hauled Coaching Stock) based solution which has a loco change at Exeter. I'm not convinced by those who say LHCS is best simply because you can add extra coaches to the set in times of need, this only works with the older LHCS still in use. Modern LHCS will no doubt be rammed full of gadgets that need to talk to each other before the loco can release the brakes, it seems to be the nature of the beast to ram trains full of gadgets simply because you can. To strengthen trains you'll need some of those unheard of objects known as spare coaches which you'll no doubt need to lease off some Japanese bank for an exhorbitant sum just in case the loadings require them on any given day. I think we can rule that one out....   

[The SprinterMeister]

I do think perhaps a new route should be built when money is available which avoids the sea wall and is wired so that there are new high speed trains serving Plymouth etc.  Besides i think FGW^▸ (First Great Western) should get some of the class 91's and mk4 stock with a new diesel loco hauling the trains from Exeter via dawlish to Plymouth/Paignton etc

Depends how much time you want to spend at either Bristol or Exeter detaching the 91 and attaching a diesel or how much time you want to loose hauling an 85 tonne non passenger carrying blob over the South Devon Banks. Bear in mind you need to run round to bring the 91+stock back as the 91 cannot function as a DVT^‡(resolve) and control a diesel locomotive at the rear. That function went when they stopped using them with HST^▸ (High Speed Train) trailers / power cars.

[inspector_blakey]

Just thinking aloud here, but is there any insurmountable technical obstacle to reinstating the ability of a class 91 to control another loco at the rear given that they did have this capability previous. Also thinking aloud, assuming class 91 locos were to be used and run round stock if push-pull wasn't viable, would the speed restriction on a 91 operating 'blunt-end first' (100 mph if memory serves) cause any issues in the west country or are line speeds sufficiently low?

Edited to add...
Just checked and (according to Wikipedia, anyway) the speed restriction on a class 91 working @r$e-backwards is 110 mph, not 100.

[The SprinterMeister]

Just thinking aloud here, but is there any insurmountable technical obstacle to reinstating the ability of a class 91 to control another loco at the rear given that they did have this capability previous.

The principle obstacle is of course the lack of electric wires above the 91. The 91's controlled modified class 43 power cars but were obviously themselves providing traction power. Lack of Overhead lines means the 110 volt battery on the 91 isn't being charged which limits its range when being used as a DVT^‡(resolve). It might be possible to provide an alternative 110v supply via a switch mode or simalar from the DC^▸ (Direct Current) ETS^▸ (Electric Train Supply) though. All the power cars have long since lost the modifications they had to work with class 91, 67's are not fitted with TDM Multi and 57/3 & 57/6 are not iftted with Multi of any description. Everything else is too old and decrepit.

You still have the issue of hauling 85 tonnes of dead AC electric loco round if your going to haul the entire 91 + Mk4 set to Plymouth which will put about 5 minutes or more on the journey time.

[paul7575]

Can I please just ask this. 

Why are there so many posts suggesting future uses of 91s/Mk4s away from the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line),  when there are no longer any clear plans to replace them with anything else ON the actual ECML?  AFAICS^▸ (As Far As I Can See) once the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) decided to replace only the ECML HST^▸ (High Speed Train) fleet with IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), the former trains are stuck there...

It all seems such a pointless exercise...

Paul

[The SprinterMeister]

Why are there so many posts suggesting future uses of 91s/Mk4s away from the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line),  when there are no longer any clear plans to replace them with anything else ON the actual ECML?  AFAICS^▸ (As Far As I Can See) once the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) decided to replace only the ECML HST^▸ (High Speed Train) fleet with IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), the former trains are stuck there...

It all seems such a pointless exercise...

Paul

Moderan Railways alludes to Alstom promoting a non tilt class 390 derivative as a possible replacement for the BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) era IC225 91's and hauled stock. Although as far as I know there are no definitive plans to replace it, it might feature in some aspirant EC operators plans especially as if the franchise is let for a 15 / 20 year period.

However hauling displaced 91's and Mk4 stock past Bristol or Exeter with a diesel loco is to my mind a pretty dud idea.

[woody]

As I understand it journey time improvements along the post electrified Great Western main line will be as a result of the much improved excelleration of electric traction rather than higher line speeds.Given that the "wires" are not going to reach Plymouth in the foreseeable future and that the venerable HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) will be operating Paddington/Plymouth/Penzance services into the 2020s at least could the retained HST mini fleet be cost effectively be re-engineered  to use more of the available horsepower of the MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) diesel engine to improve excelleration and therefore journey times on west of England services.ie a higher rated electric transmission.

[Maxwell P]

Following on from the above post:-

HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) to the SW already do reasonably well until they reach NTA^» (Newton Abbott - next trains). However, most services are diagrammed to call at TOTnes and several at IVYbridge. Once over the bridge into Cornwall, they are at best 'semi fasts' and often used as local 'stoppers'.

This has a disastrous effect on timings, particularly where stations have short platforms, (necessitating long and time consuming walks by TMs^‡(resolve)) and also plays havoc with traction gear designed for relatively long and fast runs.

Accordingly, we have a situation whence, (a couple of trains excepted) HSTs are no faster through Cornwall than a 150, although this is also due to low line speeds.  I know that local rail user groups will be outraged by this, but surely, cessation of calls at minor stations by HSTs would speed things up and at much lower cost.  A pair of 158s on sensibly timed services could easily hoover up pax from the smaller stations and offer cross platform HST interchange at PLY^» (Plymouth - next trains).  (Yes, I know there are no spare 158s at the moment).

[Tim]

Maxwell is right.

 Rather then up-rating the far west HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) you would get better more cost effective timings by removing stops.  In Devon and Cornwall this could be by introducing more DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) stoppers. 

Too far into Cornwall and the line is too bendy for decent speeds anyway.  and IIUIC at low speeds acceration is more due to gearing than it is to raw power which only becomes important at the upper end of the acceleration curve

As for short platforms slowing journey's down.  A bit of extra concrete is surely cheaper in monetary and envoronmentally than uprating an HST to burn more fuel.   

[woody]

It is a sad reflection of the state of Devon/Cornwalls main rail link to London that some 17 odd years after rail privatisation we are still having this sort of discussion at all in 2011.Only yesterday I caught the 1255 Plymouth to Paddington HST^▸ (High Speed Train) which makes a connection with the 1046 Penzance to Plymouth,a pair of hopelessly inadequate and overcrowded 153s on a so called main line connecting service.My friend who has mobility problems had to stand all the way from St Austell to Plymouth.
 Personally I had enough of the financial disaster and shortcomings that are the hallmark of our privatised railway and so have many other people.

[grahame]

... the 1046 Penzance to Plymouth,a pair of hopelessly inadequate and overcrowded 153s on a so called main line connecting service.My friend who has mobility problems had to stand all the way from St Austell to Plymouth. ...

In many ways I share the frustration ... but there are alternatives - not an expert here, but there's a through HST^▸ (High Speed Train) from Penzance to London about 45 minutes earlier, which offers a quicker end to end journey too.  Would it too have been full and standing from St. Austell?  And from observations the following train (again less that 1 hour forward) is 3 rather that 2 cars. I was looking through the Network Rail CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) documents, and they're suggesting that if loading is over 80% in general terms, there are bound to be pockets which are overcrowded. Let's hope that a revamp of services doesn't cut down the number of trains retained from scrapping to a bare minimum, but rather uses the opportunity to add more seats in total.

[Tim]

Let's hope that a revamp of services doesn't cut down the number of trains retained from scrapping to a bare minimum, but rather uses the opportunity to add more seats in total.

I share this hope. 

It would be an ideal opportunity to add an extra carriage to the retained HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) too.  That ought to be a no-brainer cost-wise.  The capital costs ought to be merely equal to the cost of defering cashing in on the scrap value of the coach for a few years and the running cost ought to be extra fuel and maintence only (no more operation staff would be needed) which on a growing railway where overcrowding contrains further growth should be more than offset by extra fare revenue.

BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) would have done the calculation like that and concluded it could lengthen the trains without huge extra costs, but you just know that under our present system the only way the HSTs would be lengthened would be at huge cost to the tax-payer