IEP for beginners

[HSTEd]

Sorry but you are spend £80,000 a year per train extra according to those figures.

Who says having a loco hauling an EMU of the wires for the short distance that that would be is more expensive?

It can be derived from examination of existing track access charges that the extra track damage from teh 50t of traction equipment spread over 20 or even 40 axles will not have that great an impact on the IEPs said track access charges. (It appears that track damage scales similarly to road damage from heavy goods vehicles, ie. by something approaching the fourth power of loading)

Indeed the bi-mode IEP will likely have lower track access charges than the Class 221 currently does, which is broadly comparable with the Pendolino.

Meanwhile a Class 67 will have track access charges totally atleast 47p/vehicle mile.
Meaning that on track access alone you will only be able to travel 484 miles with the locomotive before you are better off with bi-mode.
Once you include 40t of extra weight being lugged around on diesel power, you will rapidly find that bi-mode becomes the better option even without considering the operational nightmares being proposed.
For instance a figure can be derived from the Traction Energy metrics of the HST showing a fuel consumption of approximately 0.01L per tonne kilometre on diesel power.
This translates to roughly 0.4L/km (which is broadly in agreement with figures for other trains around the ~40t mark, which is the excess weight we are talking about).
That is 0.64L/mile or approximately 45p/mile at current red diesel prices.

That reduces the breakeven distance for the loco haulage excluding all other operational costs to something on order of 247 miles per day.
And I haven't even started on the extra staffing costs and the wasted paths in Edinburgh for the changeoever yet.

EDIT:

This would reduce the "saving" from using loco haulage for a London-Edinburgh-London-Aberdeen diagram to something like ~140 miles of diesel running, which is ~£128/day.
That translates to £3865/month.

The excess leasing cost for a bi-mode IEP over the electric IEP is about £10,000/month for a 5 car set, and I will assume ~£20k/month for a 10 car set.
Anyone know where you can find a Class 67 type locomotive for the leasing cost of roughly £24,000/month, including full maintenance?
That is less than the leasing cost of a single IEP bi-mode vehicle.
Capital cost on a modern 67/Eurolight type locomotive are going to be that high even in a very optimistic scenario, even before you get into providing all the additonal crews with the additional training.

 

[Dave1987]

Sorry but you can't compare the fuel economy of a modern loco to a HST, a class 70 would be a more appropriate comparison.

Plus you would not need a loco for every EMU, in fact you would prob need 1 loco for every 3 EMU's. plus as I said before you could use a loco after the wires are all up for freight where as bi-mode engines would have no use.

Also as far as track access charges for a loco are concerned a more fair comparison would again be a class 70. Plus you have not said anything about the massive waste of energy bi-mode is. It is not Eco-friendly at all.

 

[RobShipway]

Sorry but you can't compare the fuel economy of a modern loco to a HST, a class 70 would be a more appropriate comparison.

Plus you would not need a loco for every EMU, in fact you would prob need 1 loco for every 3 EMU's. plus as I said before you could use a loco after the wires are all up for freight where as bi-mode engines would have no use.

Also as far as track access charges for a loco are concerned a more fair comparison would again be a class 70. Plus you have not said anything about the massive waste of energy bi-mode is. It is not Eco-friendly at all.

I think that it would be down to the design of the bi - mode loco. For example I don't believe that a Class 73 is that much heavier than as class 33, yet both before the electrification of the line Bournemouth to Weymouth used to pull the trains.

If a loco is to be used with the IEP trains, then for me it needs to be a modern day version of the Class 73, but as well as diesel power be able to use OHLE as well as third rail. However, I think this would create a heavy loco that would barely to haul the IEP trains at 60 - 80mph, on lines where the HST does 125mph. This is where if Hitachi have got their sums correct the bi - mode trains would be such that they could still do the 125mph under the wires even with the extra weight of the diesels, but be able to do 100 - 125mph off teh wires with the diesel engines.

 

[tbtc]

Sorry but you are spend £80,000 a year per train extra according to those figures.

Who says having a loco hauling an EMU of the wires for the short distance that that would be is more expensive?

.

How much would it cost to have a loco haul an EMU off the wires?? You cannot say "Fairly marginal stuff - considering that the alternative (having a separate loco to do a drag, which requires additional staff, additional movements etc) clearly has a cost too", when you have not posted anything that says that to be true!

A loco would only be using fuel while it is hauling the EMU else it will be sat not using any fuel, whereas a bi-mode would be constantly wasting fuel and energy where ever it was. That is so eco friendly.....not

You're not spending £80,000 a year per train *extra*, you need to compare the cost of bi-mode with the cost of your alternative.

I’m still waiting for your alternative to IEP, Dave, but in the meantime let’s assume that it involves drags (does it?). With drags, you've need:

• A loco (who is paying for the annual lease of this?)
• A second member of staff (who, again, needs to be paid for)
• Extra track movements

To keep the maths simple (but realistic – no assuming a train will work 360/365 days a year!), let’s say that a new loco would cost £3,000,000 and last for thirty years. So £100,000 a year. But that’s just the cost of purchasing the loco outright – the ROSCO leases are going to be a lot less generous. Plus you then need maintenance etc. Maybe that’s now closer to £200,000 a year (am happy to be corrected if anyone can tell me the annual lease costs of a loco including all maintenance costs).

In the days of a mixed railway (and regular loco haulage, local freight etc) you could have used the loco to work other turns, shunt about in between drags. But nowadays it’s going to be redundant for most of the day. The costs will still mount up even if it’s sat in a siding for twenty hours a day though.

Staff? Well, drivers don’t come cheap (even assuming you only need one per loco). By the time you factor in basic salary, pension contributions into a final salary scheme, employer taxes (National Insurance etc), staff training, recruitment, sickness cover, holiday pay... you’ll be talking well over £50,000 a year. Some TOCs pay drivers over £50,000 salary (with all of the other costs being borne by the employer on top).

So just one loco and one driver might cost you around a quarter of a million pounds a year. Which works out at roughly three times the £80,000 figure. Except that the £80,000 figure assumes that the bi-mode is going to be under the wires all day long (and that it works 360 days a year). In reality, it’s going to be running away from the wires too. Let’s say that a typical day’s duty is something like Aberdeen – London – Harrogate. Or Hull – London – Inverness. In which case the £80,000 needs to be reduced by the time that the train is running away from the wires.

Suddenly the maths don’t look quite so black and white. Then you have to get your loco from its depot to the place it does its drags (more fuel, more track access charges). What about the cost of hauling a full length Pendolino/225 rake beyond the wires (when bi-mode allows for only half of the train to run forward from Leeds to Harrogate or Selby to Hull)? All adds up.

 

[HSTEd]

Sorry but you can't compare the fuel economy of a modern loco to a HST, a class 70 would be a more appropriate comparison.

A Class 70 would not be a modern comparison since we don't have trains crawling to Aberdeen at 70mph or less.
And the most important part in determining fuel efficiency in the HST is quite modern, the power pack.

Plus you would not need a loco for every EMU, in fact you would prob need 1 loco for every 3 EMU's. plus as I said before you could use a loco after the wires are all up for freight where as bi-mode engines would have no use.

Why would you use a high speed locomotive on low speed freight operations when there is and is bound to be a massive surplus of freight motive power long into the future?
And even at 3:1 you are going to have difficulty maintaining this fleet of locomotives.

And a 900kW diesel engine has multiple uses... we are going to need a bunch of light locomotives to replace all the Class 20s relatively soon and those power plants would be useful for that.
Or they could be transferred to late builds of IEP electrics (as they all need one plant each).

Also as far as track access charges for a loco are concerned a more fair comparison would again be a class 70. Plus you have not said anything about the massive waste of energy bi-mode is. It is not Eco-friendly at all.

But its not a waste of energy.
It uses a cheaper more abundant form of energy where possible.

You are dragging 40t or more of dead weight around with you on your loco drags using the expensive fuel rather than 50t of dead weight on the bi mode multiple unit using the cheap fuel.

And why is a freight unit designed for low speed operation more appropriate than a passenger unit rated for the speeds the locomotive will actually be doing in service?

And before you ask a Class 57 has even higher track access charges than teh Class 67.

 

[Dave1987]

You are spending around £80,000 per year per bi-mode train to haul the underfloor engine under the wires.

So lets say that you have 1 loco per 3 emu's for dragging them off the wires. so you are saving 3 x £80,000 a year give or take. Thats around £240,000 a year. A loco does not cost £240,000 a year to operate.

You would have a shunter driver to do the light engine moves who cost half as much to employ. The cost of light engine moves are minimal, which is why TOC are not really that bothered about making extra ECS moves in and out of depots.

Unless these underfloor engines were designed to be retrofitted to other traction then they would be useless.

But its not a waste of energy

It is a total waste of energy. Like I have said numerous times on this thread the industry experts think it is as well and think bi-mode trains are a pointless exercise.

Also the bi-mode IEP off the wires would be a lot slower than current HST's so journey times would increase. There is also experts who doubt they will be able to cope with more hilly areas of the lines they will operate on. A 100-125mph loco would not have this problem.

 

[tbtc]

lets say that you have 1 loco per 3 emu's for dragging them off the wires. so you are saving 3 x £80,000 a year give or take. Thats around £240,000 a year. A loco does not cost £240,000 a year to operate

You'd be paying about three million quid for a loco, expected to last maybe thirty years, add in all of the ROSCO expenses/ maintenance etc... all adds up Dave.

It'd help things if we knew what your alternative was, mind...

 

[455driver]

Paul Bigland did a ALR over the summer, RAIL provided him with a decibel meter to take some measurements of the trains he used. He found that the Chiltern refurbished Mk3 was amongst the loudest and a VT 221 the quietest (I believe the measurements were made as close to the centre of the vehicle as possible and at speed).

Well as Bighead is in love with all things virmin (I am sure he would lick RBs bottom clean with his tongue given half a chance), do you honestly think he would find Virmins main competitor on Birmingham route anything else but poor?
He also hates loco hauled trains of any sort I am not surprised at the results, now if it was done by somebody with an open mind and fair tests!:roll:

 

[Dave1987]

You'd be paying about three million quid for a loco, expected to last maybe thirty years, add in all of the ROSCO expenses/ maintenance etc... all adds up Dave.

It'd help things if we knew what your alternative was, mind...

My alternative is buying pendo style trains (with improvements to window size and interior design) so a dedicated electric train so no excess weight. Then drag them off the wires with high speed loco's like the new class 68. I think that way you dont waste energy lugging engines under the wires.

I believe they will only weigh 85 tonnes and will be designed to work both passenger and freight trains so they will be able to be put over to freight after the wires are fully up. They will easily be able to accelerate the weight of a pendo style train to 100mph and would not struggle with hilly areas

 

[jimm]

One the subject of facts, there is this document. From which it can reasonably be concluded that any departure from existing vehicle dimensions should be avoided like the plague. The real test comes when the first vehicles have been built and have to go through low speed and dynamic clearance checks.

And what is the radius of the Ashton Magna curve? Looking at the map, it does not look like the sort of curve that could cause gauging troubles. The sort of curve that could is the one visible on the same map, where the former Chipping Norton branch turned off at Kingham. Then there is the spaghetti of track around Bristol Temple Meads. And at York and Newcastle.

In what way is a description of the services provided by Network Rail's gauging engineering team a justification for the assertion that "it can reasonably be concluded that any departure from existing vehicle dimensions should be avoided like the plague"? Certainly has nothing do do with providing a shred of evidence for your alleged "major infrastucture upgrade".

I've no idea what the radius of Aston Magna curve is, all I know it is seriously tight for a curve on a main line http://www.hondawanderer.com/166217_Aston_Magna_2008.htm and not at all a Brunel-type feature and while with the aid of some seriously canted track the speed limit was raised to 70mph by BR, in steam days it was all of 45mph.

And throw out the names of all the locations you like - you've done that before as well (remember your claim that "the Cotswold Line" was a place horribly afflicted by clearance problems?) - I'm still waiting to see the list of the places where work is actually going to take place for your "major infrastructure upgrade".

Diesel traction is more fuel-efficient anyway.

So this is why most of the world, apart of course from the oil-obsessed Americans, has been steadily electrifying railways for a hundred years or so now, is it?

And you will keep banging on about Bournemouth to Weymouth push-pull operation as though this was some gold standard for railway operation. It only ever happened because BR couldn't scrape together enough money to lay third rail to Weymouth in 1968 (many of the coaches in 4-REPs and 4TCs were converted Mk1 loco-hauled passenger stock to save money as well), so the Southern Region made the best of what kit it had to hand. Even when Weymouth was finally electrified, it was a bargain basement job, with severe limits on how many emus are allowed west of Bournemouth at the same time to this day, because of power supply issues.

Dave1987, I'm still waiting for you to explain how running your diesel locos for miles under wires to get to a traction maintenance depot from Oxford or Swindon, etc, is not wasteful. Or is it just anything and everything to do with IEP that is wasteful, no matter what anyone else says, while whatever you agree with is a model of sensible spending and operation?

 

[Dave1987]

Dave1987, I'm still waiting for you to explain how running your diesel locos for miles under wires to get to a traction maintenance depot from Oxford or Swindon, etc, is not wasteful. Or is it just anything and everything to do with IEP that is wasteful, no matter what anyone else says, while whatever you agree with is a model of sensible spending and operation?

They will only need an exam once a month probably less considering how little miles they will be hauling over. Yes it would be wasteful but far far far less wasteful than towing an underfloor engine on a bi-mode under the wires all the time. Bi-mode trains are wasting energy constantly

 

[tbtc]

My alternative is buying pendo style trains (with improvements to window size and interior design) so a dedicated electric train so no excess weight. Then drag them off the wires with high speed loco's like the new class 68. I think that way you dont waste energy lugging engines under the wires.

I believe they will only weigh 85 tonnes and will be designed to work both passenger and freight trains so they will be able to be put over to freight after the wires are fully up. They will easily be able to accelerate the weight of a pendo style train to 100mph and would not struggle with hilly areas

So instead of the current plan which would see five coaches detach at Oxford for Hereford (or at Leeds for Harrogate, or at Selby for Hull etc etc), you'd want a full length Pendolino going all the way to Hereford? The extra half dozen coaches (on top of the loco weight) are going to weigh a lot more than three fuel tanks!

You'd need to build more carriages too - since the number of coaches away from the wires would now be double - as well as maybe twenty locos. A lot of resources.

Plus the extra track access charges (loco plus eleven coaches versus five coaches), the extra staff... no waste?

 

[Dave1987]

So instead of the current plan which would see five coaches detach at Oxford for Hereford (or at Leeds for Harrogate, or at Selby for Hull etc etc), you'd want a full length Pendolino going all the way to Hereford? The extra half dozen coaches (on top of the loco weight) are going to weigh a lot more than three fuel tanks!

You'd need to build more carriages too - since the number of coaches away from the wires would now be double - as well as maybe twenty locos. A lot of resources.

Plus the extra track access charges (loco plus eleven coaches versus five coaches), the extra staff... no waste?

Hold on a sec IEP will be 10 cars long. Currently the HST's go all the way to Hereford. So your idea is to reduce train length. Please you already get people on many lines complaining that 12 car trains aren't long enough.

Its not just the weight of three fuel tanks though! Its the weight of 5 heavy diesel engines plus fuel tanks plus fuel plus associated components. Someone else said that stacked up to around the 50 tonnes mark. So you are dragging around 50 tonnes of dead weight under the wires constantly. Besides the class 68 only weighs 85 tonnes and will have far more power than the underfloor engines, 3,750hp/2,800kW, and will be able to accelerate far quicker and wont struggle on the gradients. With bi-mode journey times will increase, plus the fuel efficiency with a class 68 will be far higher due to being able to comply with emmisions regulations easier

 

[asylumxl]

Would like to point out there's several variations of IEP with different lengths.

You're also ignoring adhesion when you talk about power. No point having more power if it's only being put down on on 4 axles.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

I've no idea what the radius of Aston Magna curve is, all I know it is seriously tight for a curve on a main line http://www.hondawanderer.com/166217_Aston_Magna_2008.htm and not at all a Brunel-type feature and while with the aid of some seriously canted track the speed limit was raised to 70mph by BR, in steam days it was all of 45mph.

You can see it on Google earth. Then take a look at the track layout around Bristol. Curves on main lines are not the issue when it comes to gauging. It is minimum radius curves that cause gauging problems.

I'm still waiting to see the list of the places where work is actually going to take place for your "major infrastructure upgrade".

It will emerge in the fullness of time.

So this is why most of the world, apart of course from the oil-obsessed Americans, has been steadily electrifying railways for a hundred years or so now, is it?

Whatever benefits electrification has, thermal efficiency is not one of them, but since thermal efficiency is not the be-all-and-end-all of railways electrification is worth doing once traffic densities rise above a certain level.

And you will keep banging on about Bournemouth to Weymouth push-pull operation as though this was some gold standard for railway operation. It only ever happened because BR couldn't scrape together enough money to lay third rail to Weymouth in 1968 (many of the coaches in 4-REPs and 4TCs were converted Mk1 loco-hauled passenger stock to save money as well), so the Southern Region made the best of what kit it had to hand. Even when Weymouth was finally electrified, it was a bargain basement job, with severe limits on how many emus are allowed west of Bournemouth at the same time to this day, because of power supply issues.

What does "banging on" mean, apart from the fact that the fact that I refer to it obviously makes you bad tempered?"Bargain basement job" = efficient use of resources, and the system served perfectly well for two decades. Incidentally, class 33 diesels sometimes worked all the way to Waterloo with a pair of 4TC-units. Everything was operationally compatible with everything else, including the TC trailer sets, the REP high power units, all the suburban and long distance EP units, baggage cars, the class 33 diesels, and the class 73 electro-diesels. Later on, this compatibility made it possible to upgrade the Gatwick express with mark 2 rakes, a class 73 at one end and a former HAP vehicle at the other.

The Southern fleet introduced from the 1950s onwards was a exemplar of sound engineering design philosophy with the underlying concept based on the principles of simplicity, flexibility and compatibility. That is what happens when the major input to the design is from practical railwaymen and engineers. The IEP, on the other hand, is just what is to be expected when the civil service philosophy is applied.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would like to point out there's several variations of IEP with different lengths.

You're also ignoring adhesion when you talk about power. No point having more power if it's only being put down on on 4 axles.

Roger Ford debunked that view in an article in Modern Railways a few years ago. Adhesion is not the limiting factor except at very low speeds. As speed rises, the power is not there to be put down. So distributed power is a very good thing for metro type services with frequent stops, where acceleration is critical to the operation.

 

[sprinterguy]

Hold on a sec IEP will be 10 cars long. Currently the HST's go all the way to Hereford. So your idea is to reduce train length. Please you already get people on many lines complaining that 12 car trains aren't long enough.

The Bi-mode IEP trains on the GWML will be 5 carriages long, the electric sets 9 carriages long. The 5-car trains will be able to run in pairs as 10-car formations, but it will be useful to be able to split a pair of sets so that only five carriages continue past, say Oxford onto the Cotswold route at off-peak times when passenger demand does not currently fill a whole HST anyway.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The Bi-mode IEP trains on the GWML will be 5 carriages long, the electric sets 9 carriages long. The 5-car trains will be able to run in pairs as 10-car formations, but it will be useful to be able to split a pair of sets so that only five carriages continue past, say Oxford onto the Cotswold route at off-peak times when passenger demand does not currently fill a whole HST anyway.

Other posters keep asserting that Oxford is too busy for train movements. If the train is split at Oxford, the half that stays behind has got to go from the down side to the up side platforms. I don't have a view on this myself, except that if this is possible then it would be equally possible to do a loco-drag, and split the train as well if the traffic beyond Oxford was light.

 

[tbtc]

Hold on a sec IEP will be 10 cars long. Currently the HST's go all the way to Hereford. So your idea is to reduce train length. Please you already get people on many lines complaining that 12 car trains aren't long enough.

Its not just the weight of three fuel tanks though! Its the weight of 5 heavy diesel engines plus fuel tanks plus fuel plus associated components. Someone else said that stacked up to around the 50 tonnes mark. So you are dragging around 50 tonnes of dead weight under the wires constantly. Besides the class 68 only weighs 85 tonnes and will have far more power than the underfloor engines, 3,750hp/2,800kW, and will be able to accelerate far quicker and wont struggle on the gradients. With bi-mode journey times will increase, plus the fuel efficiency with a class 68 will be far higher due to being able to comply with emmisions regulations easier

The idea is for 5 coaches to run beyond Oxford (and Swindon, Bristol, Leeds etc) on all off peak services, so a 130m train. 260m from London to Oxford, 130m from Oxford to Hereford.

With portion working, you concentrate resources at the busy (London) end - the fact that Hereford gets *only* 130m trains off peak is less of an issue.

In your version, you'd have a loco plus an eleven coach train (albeit only 11x23m, so roughly as long as a doubled up bi-mode 10x26m). Quite a lot of extra weight!

 

[455driver]

They will only need an exam once a month probably less considering how little miles they will be hauling over. Yes it would be wasteful but far far far less wasteful than towing an underfloor engine on a bi-mode under the wires all the time. Bi-mode trains are wasting energy constantly

Why does the diesel loco servicing have to be at the electrified end of the line?

They could be maintained/ fueled at Laira (where some of them will end up every night anyway) at a mileage cost of zero.

There is a lot of blinkered vision on this thread looking at one thing or another only and not at the bigger picture/ whole thing overall.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The price of the IEP came out at £2.7-3m per carriage I believe.

The price of a newbuild of Pendolinos comes out at about £2.3m/carriage supposedly.

They aren't that expenisve, its just that inflation has pushed the prices up rather drastically in ten years since the last fleet of high speed trains arrived.

The Pendolino is not exactly an example of the KISS school of engineering design. What does a hauled vehicle cost as new build? That is the proper comparison. Then factor in the continued operation of some mark 3 stock for a couple of decades. Then factor in the cost of new build locos and the different track access charges for loco haulage. And allow for the possibility that it ought to be possible to design a loco that is easier on the track than a class 67. And allow also for the possibility that it may be necessary to run an entire route under diesel power due to difficulties of effecting loco changes in some of the places where the wires come to an end.

Working all that out is a long job with a lot of assumptions to be made.

 

[asylumxl]

YRoger Ford debunked that view in an article in Modern Railways a few years ago. Adhesion is not the limiting factor except at very low speeds. As speed rises, the power is not there to be put down. So distributed power is a very good thing for metro type services with frequent stops, where acceleration is critical to the operation.

Forgive me if I take things he says with a pinch of salt.

In reality acceleration is very important for the IEP, especially in places where the line speed can't be increased. Quicker acceleration and the resulting higher average speed is the obvious solution to reduce journey times further.

 

[455driver]

Forgive me if I take things he says with a pinch of salt.

In reality acceleration is very important for the IEP, especially in places where the line speed can't be increased. Quicker acceleration and the resulting higher average speed is the obvious solution to reduce journey times further.

And dragging 50 (or whatever) tonnes of dead diesel engine will help acceleration wont it!

 

[asylumxl]

And dragging 50 (or whatever) tonnes of dead diesel engine will help acceleration wont it!

And how much will the whole train weigh?

 

[jopsuk]

If, as RAGNARØKR says, distributed traction isn't of much benefit to limited stop hi speed operation, then why:
does every Shinkansen model use distributed traction?
does the Siemens ICE3 and its descendent the Velaro range use distributed traction?
does the AGV use distributed traction?

No major international manufacturer is offering new high speed trains using a power car/unpowered coaches setup- the only such trains being built are the latest model of KTX and legacy add-on orders for the TGV Duplex.

RAGNARØKR, why do you think you know better than the suppliers and buyers of high speed trains?

 

[The Ham]

The Pendolino is not exactly an example of the KISS school of engineering design. What does a hauled vehicle cost as new build? That is the proper comparison. Then factor in the continued operation of some mark 3 stock for a couple of decades. Then factor in the cost of new build locos and the different track access charges for loco haulage. And allow for the possibility that it ought to be possible to design a loco that is easier on the track than a class 67. And allow also for the possibility that it may be necessary to run an entire route under diesel power due to difficulties of effecting loco changes in some of the places where the wires come to an end.

Working all that out is a long job with a lot of assumptions to be made.

OK, track access charges:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/cp4-pl-track_usage_181208.pdf

A class 43 at 28.18ppm plus a DVT at 10.60ppm plus say 10 mark 3 coaches at 6.53ppm each that comes to 104.08ppm. Compare this to a Class 67 and 10 mark 4 coaches and a DVT it works out at 172.82ppm

Compare this to an 11 coach voyager and it costs 96.25ppm.

Alternatively an 11 coach Pendolino would be 150.1ppm and as has been said before IEP will require LESS coaches per train to maintain the same capacity, which potentially reduces the track access charges.

 

[Dave1987]

OK, track access charges:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/cp4-pl-track_usage_181208.pdf

A class 43 at 28.18ppm plus a DVT at 10.60ppm plus say 10 mark 3 coaches at 6.53ppm each that comes to 104.08ppm. Compare this to a Class 67 and 10 mark 4 coaches and a DVT it works out at 172.82ppm

Compare this to an 11 coach voyager and it costs 96.25ppm.

Alternatively an 11 coach Pendolino would be 150.1ppm and as has been said before IEP will require LESS coaches per train to maintain the same capacity, which potentially reduces the track access charges.

All you are going on about is track access charges. What about the £80,000 per train per year in hauling around the dead weight of the bi-modes engines under the wires eh? What about the fact underfloor engines are less fuel efficient than modern locos? The class 68 is said to be the most fuel efficient, least polluting loco ever. And will be able to run at 100mph with freight or passenger trains. The weight of a pendo style train would be nothing for one of these considering they will have 3,750hp/2,800kW. The bi-mode will be slow to accelerate and will struggle up hills. A loco like the class 68 will accelerate quicker and wont struggle on hills.

 

[RobShipway]

Other posters keep asserting that Oxford is too busy for train movements. If the train is split at Oxford, the half that stays behind has got to go from the down side to the up side platforms. I don't have a view on this myself, except that if this is possible then it would be equally possible to do a loco-drag, and split the train as well if the traffic beyond Oxford was light.

There is a sidings just North of Oxford station where the not required IEP train can go until the next back to London from Hereford etc.... comes into the station then it can be joined to that train. The sidings can hold a 8 car HST, so I believe that even though the IEP carriages are longer it should be able to hold a 5 car IEP train.

All you are going on about is track access charges. What about the £80,000 per train per year in hauling around the dead weight of the bi-modes engines under the wires eh? What about the fact underfloor engines are less fuel efficient than modern locos? The class 68 is said to be the most fuel efficient, least polluting loco ever. And will be able to run at 100mph with freight or passenger trains. The weight of a pendo style train would be nothing for one of these considering they will have 3,750hp/2,800kW. The bi-mode will be slow to accelerate and will struggle up hills. A loco like the class 68 will accelerate quicker and wont struggle on hills.

But you would be running a train at 100mph, where with the underfloor engines it would be doing 125mph. If anything you would be wanting a class 67 pulling the IEP trains as they have a top speed 125mph and I believe that they would be able to keep to the current HST timings, but as you say can still be used for freight where needed.

 

[Zoe]

where with the underfloor engines it would be doing 125mph.

But it won't, bi-mode IEP is limited to 110 mph when on diesel.

 

[asylumxl]

But it won't, bi-mode IEP is limited to 110 mph when on diesel.

Which routes that it would run on the diesel engines would it need more than that?

 

[jimm]

They will only need an exam once a month probably less considering how little miles they will be hauling over. Yes it would be wasteful but far far far less wasteful than towing an underfloor engine on a bi-mode under the wires all the time. Bi-mode trains are wasting energy constantly

I'm sorry, are you serious?

Oxford to Worcester is 57 miles, Oxford to Hereford is 86 miles. The Cotswold Line is planned to go to a regular pattern hourly off-peak service with IEP (London-Oxford-Worcester) and half-hourly in the peaks in the direction of the main flows morning and evening. A number of services will extend to/from Malvern and Hereford.

Just look at the timetable now. There are a lot of trains to cover there already, before you add more trains and extend current Moreton-in-Marsh turnbacks further west. Similar factors will apply on Swindon-Cheltenham. And unless someone is going to come up with the readies to build a new depot at, say, Worcester, you are going to have to get rolling stock from Bristol for the morning trains from Hereford and get the stock off the return workings in the evening to Bristol, so that's a few more miles on the clock.

The only fuelling point on either route is LM's at Worcester, assuming you could get access to it.

These routes require frequent start-stop cycling with stations a few miles apart. The locos will be working hard throughout the day from first thing until late at night. I think they might just need to get to a depot more than once a month - and whatever the frequency of such visits, it still amounts to miles of running light engine under electric wires on diesel power, earning not a penny in revenue - or isn't that wasteful in your one-eyed world?

What happens when one breaks, miles from a traction maintenance depot? Build lots of little depots and fuelling points for them? That looks like a waste of money to me...

Why does the diesel loco servicing have to be at the electrified end of the line?

They could be maintained/ fueled at Laira (where some of them will end up every night anyway) at a mileage cost of zero.

There is a lot of blinkered vision on this thread looking at one thing or another only and not at the bigger picture/ whole thing overall.

What's Laira got to do with it? There's no suggestion at this stage that IEP is going anywhere near Devon. The places on the GW network where bi-mode is planned to operate and ensure the future of through services from London are the Cotswold Line, Swindon to Gloucester and Cheltenham, Swansea-Carmarthen and Bristol-Weston super Mare. The biggest number of locos would be needed on the Cotswold Line. Oxford is 60 miles from an GW depot equipped for big diesels (I can't imagine anyone is planning to provide suitable facilities for locos at the new depot in Reading). Swindon is about 40 miles from Bristol. So plenty of mileage costs. And Hereford and Worcester are even further from a tmd. That's the big picture I'm looking at.

You can see it on Google earth. Then take a look at the track layout around Bristol. Curves on main lines are not the issue when it comes to gauging. It is minimum radius curves that cause gauging problems.
It will emerge in the fullness of time.
Whatever benefits electrification has, thermal efficiency is not one of them, but since thermal efficiency is not the be-all-and-end-all of railways electrification is worth doing once traffic densities rise above a certain level.
What does "banging on" mean, apart from the fact that the fact that I refer to it obviously makes you bad tempered?"Bargain basement job" = efficient use of resources, and the system served perfectly well for two decades. Incidentally, class 33 diesels sometimes worked all the way to Waterloo with a pair of 4TC-units. Everything was operationally compatible with everything else, including the TC trailer sets, the REP high power units, all the suburban and long distance EP units, baggage cars, the class 33 diesels, and the class 73 electro-diesels. Later on, this compatibility made it possible to upgrade the Gatwick express with mark 2 rakes, a class 73 at one end and a former HAP vehicle at the other.

The Southern fleet introduced from the 1950s onwards was a exemplar of sound engineering design philosophy with the underlying concept based on the principles of simplicity, flexibility and compatibility. That is what happens when the major input to the design is from practical railwaymen and engineers. The IEP, on the other hand, is just what is to be expected when the civil service philosophy is applied.

I don't need to see it on Google Earth, thanks, since it's a few miles up the road and I've ridden round it on trains countless times. It is a seriously sharp curve for a main line but Network Rail have somehow managed to align the tracks so that two IEPs can pass without hitting each other. Amazing...

Speaking of Network Rail, you seem to have forgotten to explain how that document you linked to helps in explaining your "major infrastructure upgrade".

How is this list going to emerge in the fullness of time when you must have seen it - or some other hard evidence - already, in order to justify your most categorical announcement on this forum that there will be "a major infrastructure upgrade" so that IEP can operate in the UK?

We've had all the stuff about radius of curves a thousand times now. Where's the evidence to justify your claimed "major infrastructure upgrade"? When is Network Rail going to start tearing up the tracks around, for example, Bristol? There isn't much time left for them to do it, is there?

What does banging on mean? That you just keep saying "look at Waterloo-Weymouth" over and over, as though this justifies adopting this method of operation again 40-odd years later, when, as I said, it was a lash-up job because BR was short of money - that's all. If the money had been there, it would never have happened in the first place. And thanks for

Incidentally, class 33 diesels sometimes worked all the way to Waterloo with a pair of 4TC-units

I am long enough in the tooth to remember and to have ridden in 4TCs west of Bournemouth. And why did 4TCs get to Waterloo? Because BR also didn't have enough money to electrify the line from Worting junction to Salisbury... not because they thought it was a great way to run the railway - even in those glory days of Mk1s that collapsed like a pack of cards if they crashed.

and split the train as well if the traffic beyond Oxford was light.

I can't wait to see this one - so as well as main-line locos shunting around the station constantly, we're going to have shunting engines shuttling empty coaches around, are we? And this at a station where the number of trains operating each day is forecast to double by the end of the decade. It just gets better and better...

If anything you would be wanting a class 67 pulling the IEP trains as they have a top speed 125mph and I believe that they would be able to keep to the current HST timings

While designed to do so, Class 67s are not allowed to run at 125mph, as they would smash the track to bits in no time. Their acceleration characteristics are quite different to an HST, as they were built for long-distance mail and parcels runs with precious few stops. Not a snowball in hell's chance they could keep to HST timings on a route like the Cotswold Line.