Regarding my earlier suggestion for possible 222s on the Cotswold line, I hadn't realised their seating capacity was no more than a 180 - so apologies if it seemed a silly suggestion.
That's not what I was told! Apparently leasing costs are similar and they drink fuel.Class 180s are obviously far cheaper to run than HSTs for a variety of reasons including fuel and track access
Exactly what I've been saying for months. If electrifying Newbury to Bedwyn has a business case of 3 then surely anything else will be higher!Did you bother to look at that stuff I linked to about the study into wires west of Newbury? A couple of short passenger trains an hour and "diversionary aspects" do not make a viable case for electrification. Only when the case is made for XC wiring between Birmingham and Bristol will you see catenary at Cheltenham and Gloucester, because you have to have a critical mass of traffic to make it pay. This is easily achieved on the core GW routes that are to be wired - but wiring the likes of Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester is likely to require converting freight flows to and from South Wales to electric traction as well
The Network Rail Electrification RUS gives a BCR of 5.1 for Cross country wiring following completion of the GWML, MML and North Transpennine. Interestingly it also gives wiring of the Berks and Hants line from Newbury to Cogload Junction a positive financial case following completion of cross country electrification to Plymouth.
It is only terrible if you do portion working with it. If catering etc. are duplicated you can run 'em in multiple as long as they stay together throughout, although it'd still be better if the sets were gangwayed. A portion working without gangways is what I have issue with, since you have to get off the train if you are in the wrong unit. In my view that means it should be treated as a connection, with plenty of time allowed for passengers to transfer.The point I was addressing was the one Rhydgaled endlessly repeats about how terrible coupling up any kind of non-gangwayed trains is, although train operators here and abroad will persist in doing it. The French use pairs of 2+8 TGVs, to get 700-plus seat formations.
I had already seen it.Did you bother to look at that stuff I linked to about the study into wires west of Newbury?
What currently runs Paddington - Bedwyn services? My guess is a Networker Turbo, in which case for wires from Newbury to Bedwyn, with a BCR of 2.58, looks to be on the basis of one short diesel train per hour (I've looked at the journey planner and it seems to be an hourly service).A couple of short passenger trains an hour and "diversionary aspects" do not make a viable case for electrification.
It is only terrible if you do portion working with it. If catering etc. are duplicated you can run 'em in multiple as long as they stay together throughout, although it'd still be better if the sets were gangwayed. A portion working without gangways is what I have issue with, since you have to get off the train if you are in the wrong unit. In my view that means it should be treated as a connection, with plenty of time allowed for passengers to transfer.
I had already seen it.
What currently runs Paddington - Bedwyn services? My guess is a Networker Turbo, in which case for wires from Newbury to Bedwyn, with a BCR of 2.58, looks to be on the basis of one short diesel train per hour (I've looked at the journey planner and it seems to be an hourly service).
The extension of wires to Westbury seems to have suffered as it has been done on the basis of the existing timetable. That means there are very few trains which terminate, meaning most services would have to remain diesel anyway. Contrast that to Swindon - Cheltenham, where expensive Intercity trains are expected to run every hour, all of which could be converted to electric traction. Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester would be a harder case to make, without wires to Birmingham too for the XC service, but you would get an hourly Swansea/Cardiff - Cheltenham service and an electrified diversionary route for freight and long Intercity trains. Is there much GWML freight from south Wales that goes via Gloucester rather than through the Severn tunnel?
It is only terrible if you do portion working with it. If catering etc. are duplicated you can run 'em in multiple as long as they stay together throughout, although it'd still be better if the sets were gangwayed. A portion working without gangways is what I have issue with, since you have to get off the train if you are in the wrong unit. In my view that means it should be treated as a connection, with plenty of time allowed for passengers to transfer.
I had already seen it.
What currently runs Paddington - Bedwyn services? My guess is a Networker Turbo, in which case for wires from Newbury to Bedwyn, with a BCR of 2.58, looks to be on the basis of one short diesel train per hour (I've looked at the journey planner and it seems to be an hourly service).
The extension of wires to Westbury seems to have suffered as it has been done on the basis of the existing timetable. That means there are very few trains which terminate, meaning most services would have to remain diesel anyway. Contrast that to Swindon - Cheltenham, where expensive Intercity trains are expected to run every hour, all of which could be converted to electric traction. Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester would be a harder case to make, without wires to Birmingham too for the XC service, but you would get an hourly Swansea/Cardiff - Cheltenham service and an electrified diversionary route for freight and long Intercity trains. Is there much GWML freight from south Wales that goes via Gloucester rather than through the Severn tunnel?
So it's your view, but railways all over the place operate portion working without gangways and will carry on doing so, whatever you think.
As has been said by starrymarkb, many in Europe are far better at indicating at the stations which portion is going where than UK operators, so there is room for improvement, but IEP is specified to have a very sophisticated CIS system, including screens at the doors. Station systems here are getting better all the time. Just because a handful of people insist on ignoring all manner of station and train door screens/destination labels, announcements, internal screens etc, does not mean you need to build your timetable around those few people.
The key reason that there was a request to look at wires beyond Newbury was precisely because of the potential for electrified diversionary access to Bristol - it wasn't exactly surprising that beyond Bedwyn the maths was less than promising - there is an established flow at Bedwyn and at Hungerford. Theoretical projections of services further west are just that - theories. Going all the way to Westbury is another 30 miles from Bedwyn, which would require more rolling stock and crews - does the demand justify that? The study would suggest not.
Gloucester and Cheltenham are simply not going to happen without the XC route, due to it carrying the majority of trains through the area, and the costs that wiring the triangular layout at Gloucester will incur - you are never going to spend the money for the Cardiff stoppers (ie just half the regular passenger service on the route via Chepstow) and a few weekend diversions a year.
I didn't mean GWML freight, I was talking about the traffic that runs from South Wales and Bristol to and from the West Midlands and beyond, sharing the same tracks as the XC services. Without wires north of Cheltenham, you cannot convert any of that freight via Chepstow to electric traction - so no contribution to making a positive cost-benefit ratio.
So because theres no "established" flow (which there is just with no regular service) we should stay stuck in the past with short sighted useless services? The established flow is around 2-10 people after Hungerford anyway so not a very good established flow!
I mean there's loads of services which aren't used well but are still run even when a credible alternative is available. For example off-peak London-Hereford services are a waste of time IMO and the Westbury-Warminster shuttles carrying only fresh air!
What needs to happen as I have said MANY times before is an hourly Exeter-London semi-fast services serving principle intermediate stations on a deserved regular basis. Then we will finally have a service which people can use and will want to use to destinations they actually want to go to! (Not Bedwyn!)
In the meantime, something will be needed to maintain the London through services (ie almost the entire Cotswold Line timetable) that can also exploit the electrification over almost two thirds of the journey between Worcester and Paddington and is flexible enough to be formed in a way that reflects the heavy peak flows (on seven days of the week) and not so heavy off-peak flows. I wonder what that might look like?
Well you might be able to build units with a gangwayed flat end and a sloped 125mph capable end.
Arrange the trains so the 125mph end is on the outside and the 110mph end is on the "inside" of the formation.
Since you could expect that the western end of the route has no 110mph running, this handicap would not be a serious problem.
Slightly off topic but I have seen a mock up timetable posted on Wnxx which was produced by the DFT for the Bristol TM - London services.
Seems the DFT are planning on some south wales - London services being worked by 5 carriage bi-modes.
I wont post the timetable on here yet although I will email if if someone send me a PM.
Attached is the timetables put together by the DFT. Seems the cotswold line is to get an hourly London - Worcester service with 1 train every 2 hours running through to Hereford.
It doesnt show some of the services which call at all stops. Didcot doesn't look to be fairing too well. Newport - Reading non stop?
Attached is the timetables put together by the DFT. Seems the cotswold line is to get an hourly London - Worcester service with 1 train every 2 hours running through to Hereford.
It doesnt show some of the services which call at all stops. Didcot doesn't look to be fairing too well. Newport - Reading non stop?
Attached is the timetables put together by the DFT. Seems the cotswold line is to get an hourly London - Worcester service with 1 train every 2 hours running through to Hereford.
It doesnt show some of the services which call at all stops. Didcot doesn't look to be fairing too well. Newport - Reading non stop?
Thanks - very interesting. I was under the impression that only 1 of the proposed 4 tph to Bristol would be via Parkway, whereas those timetables show essentially the current 2 tph plus an extra 2 non-stop between Parkway and Paddington (apparently also meaning no direct services between GWML stations and Weston?).
It's always been proposed that there would be 2tph via Parkway, but I think this is the first time that it has been shown as 2tph non-stop Parkway-London. Even a 5-car IEP is surely going to be very quiet on the Bristol-London via Parkway services. The demand for Bristol-London just can't be that great.
Is Great Malvern getting an increase or decrease in services? There. Seems less to me but more evenly spread out.
Does the IC125 to/from Paddington stable overnight at Carmarthen? The IEP seems to be shown as diagram starting and ending there.Attached is the timetables put together by the DFT. Seems the cotswold line is to get an hourly London - Worcester service with 1 train every 2 hours running through to Hereford.
It doesnt show some of the services which call at all stops. Didcot doesn't look to be fairing too well. Newport - Reading non stop?
Does the IC125 to/from Paddington stable overnight at Carmarthen? The IEP seems to be shown as diagram starting and ending there.
Thanks, I thought it probably did (and given the weekend's morning services are later, I'd guess there isn't any overnight stabling of FirstGW trains at Carmarthen on any night of the week).The current weekday service spends the night at Llandore.