If you were DfT - the future of Voyagers

RAGNARØKR;1234377 said:

Loco-hauled push-pull operation is flexible and permits smooth operation on routes which are partly electrified and where loadings at the "country" end are relatively light. Thus a split at places like Oxford avoids carting empty vehicles about whilst preserving the benefits of through running.

Click to expand...

It comes back to the problem that to split a loco hauled train needs time and space (as well as another loco which just spends all day sat at Oxford shunting empty stock). Given there are (off peak) 6 trains an hour each way through Oxford that doesn't leave a lot of time to move the coaches out of the way before the next train is due or move them to join up with a train, the gaps can be as close a 5 minutes (even less if the train is running late!). Even if you could shuffled platforms so that trains joined stock which had just been left it all has a dramatic impact on what services can run along the lines.

Also if you were to split train formations at a DVT then you still have the same crash requirements as any train that can run at 125mph on the faster lines, so no increase in seating capacity over a 125mph DMU (in fact length for length the DMU would have more seats). Plus the added complication of the fact that the DVT's for the high speed trains would have to be the right way around for each train to enable it to be facing the right way as it was joined up would make the logistics a nightmare (unless there is a quick and easy way of turning a rake of coaches around)

It also means that at every station where trains split with spare stock going to the sidings there has to be a spare loco (potentially more expensive than just building DUM's in the first place*) or the stock has to sit at a platform for the next train (waste of platform space and limits services that can be run).

* as for each station which requires a loco you need the fleet to be 6 coaches larger than the break-even point where building MU's would be the same cost. Add to that the running costs of said loco and the logistics of what has to happen when that loco needs maintaining or breaks down.

All in all the TOC's would probably favour fixed length loco hauled trains like the IC125's and IC225's (effectively making them a MU) or MU which can be joined and split with ease at any station where there are the right staff.

The Ham said:

It comes back to the problem that to split a loco hauled train needs time and space (as well as another loco which just spends all day sat at Oxford shunting empty stock). Given there are (off peak) 6 trains an hour each way through Oxford that doesn't leave a lot of time to move the coaches out of the way before the next train is due or move them to join up with a train, the gaps can be as close a 5 minutes (even less if the train is running late!). Even if you could shuffled platforms so that trains joined stock which had just been left it all has a dramatic impact on what services can run along the lines.

Also if you were to split train formations at a DVT then you still have the same crash requirements as any train that can run at 125mph on the faster lines, so no increase in seating capacity over a 125mph DMU (in fact length for length the DMU would have more seats). Plus the added complication of the fact that the DVT's for the high speed trains would have to be the right way around for each train to enable it to be facing the right way as it was joined up would make the logistics a nightmare (unless there is a quick and easy way of turning a rake of coaches around)

It also means that at every station where trains split with spare stock going to the sidings there has to be a spare loco (potentially more expensive than just building DUM's in the first place*) or the stock has to sit at a platform for the next train (waste of platform space and limits services that can be run).

* as for each station which requires a loco you need the fleet to be 6 coaches larger than the break-even point where building MU's would be the same cost. Add to that the running costs of said loco and the logistics of what has to happen when that loco needs maintaining or breaks down.

All in all the TOC's would probably favour fixed length loco hauled trains like the IC125's and IC225's (effectively making them a MU) or MU which can be joined and split with ease at any station where there are the right staff.

Click to expand...

The type of operation I was talking about was performed regularly at Bournmouth for over 20 years. It takes about 5 minutes. On a route such as Oxford, the high speed driving trailer can be at the country end. The Hereford portion can have a blunt DVT with corridor connection at the London end. The diesel loco that pushed in the previous train from Hereford can then take out the Hereford portion and leave the Oxford-only section behind. A Hereford portion couples to the London-Oxford portion with its electric loco attached. There is no 125 mph running over the Cotwold line.

There is plenty of space to join and split formations in the sidings at the north end of Oxford station, though obviously it would not be desirable to be doing it all the time. We are only talking about through trains that run beyond to the Cotswold line which can split and join at the station. For the rest, London to Oxford is classic EMU territory.

RAGNARØKR;1234377 said:

MU trains should if possible have through connections of some sort.

...

Obviously for safety and aerodynamic reasons the through gangway gets difficult if the trains are designed to run at more than 100 mph

Click to expand...

This is basicly what I'm saying, MUs should have through connections on the ends but it is difficult (I expect impossible or at least ill-advised) to do so if the train needs to go above 100/110mph.

Therefore, a properly designed MU which is not required to exceed 110mph (with through-connections, which is implied by the 'properly designed') will beat LHCS soundly in terms of flexibility, no question about it.

Loco-hauled push-pull operation is flexible and permits smooth operation on routes which are partly electrified and where loadings at the "country" end are relatively light. Thus a split at places like Oxford avoids carting empty vehicles about whilst preserving the benefits of through running.

Click to expand...

The Ham said:

if you were to split train formations at a DVT then you still have the same crash requirements as any train that can run at 125mph on the faster lines, so no increase in seating capacity over a 125mph DMU (in fact length for length the DMU would have more seats). Plus the added complication of the fact that the DVT's for the high speed trains would have to be the right way around for each train to enable it to be facing the right way as it was joined up would make the logistics a nightmare

Click to expand...

Two short push-pull sets (with pointy DVTs) like the WAG Express working in multiple and splitting at Oxford would be just a bad (if not even slightly worse) than 2x class 180 in multiple splitting at Oxford.

RAGNARØKR;1234377 said:

To return to the original thread, in a world where the railways were integrated, a rational long term strategy would be to convert the Voyagers and class 180s into hauled stock when the traction equipment needs major overhaul, with the driving vehicles becoming control trailers. This should be done in such a way as to be compatible with mark 3 and 3a trailers, thereby re-creating a uniform operationally compatible fleet.

Judicious mixing of types would enable mostly mark 3 sets to include vehicles with wheelchair-access toilets. The trains would be made up into semi-permanently coupled units with from, say, three to seven vehicles, some with ungangwayed control trailers including the mark 3 type DVTs, and some with gangways, class 442 or 444 style.

Click to expand...

While I like that idea, I very much doubt it is possible. Just taking the diesel engines out and making the cabs compatible with whatever locos you use wouldn't work (you'd have too many driving vehicles compared to the number of intermediate trailers) unless you could actually make them compatible with mark3s, which I doubt. It would probably be easier to convert the 180s and Voyagers to EMUs (probably not possible in itself) than make them compatiable with mark3s.

RAGNARØKR;1234718 said:

The type of operation I was talking about was performed regularly at Bournmouth for over 20 years. It takes about 5 minutes. On a route such as Oxford, the high speed driving trailer can be at the country end. The Hereford portion can have a blunt DVT with corridor connection at the London end. The diesel loco that pushed in the previous train from Hereford can then take out the Hereford portion and leave the Oxford-only section behind. A Hereford portion couples to the London-Oxford portion with its electric loco attached. There is no 125 mph running over the Cotwold line.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that doesn't seem to make sense (the only bit that does is the blunt DVT (something like the driving vehicle on a 5-WES EMU)). Bournemouth, I thought (from what I've read on fourms), was an EMU + CS* from London, with the CS* at the Bournemouth end. At Bournemouth, a diesel loco is waiting and couples to the leading vehicle while the rear vehicle of the CS* is uncoupled from the EMU.

You could do the same sort of thing (although with all the carriages, and the weight of electric traction gear, going through to the Cotswolds) by using something like a 7-car 125mph EMU and having a diesel loco waiting at Oxford to haul it over the off-wire section (basicly exactly the same as Pendolinios to Holyhead).

If you want to split the train (and leave the electric traction gear behind) then I think we need something like the driving vehicle on a 5-WES, which I will call for the purpose of this disscusion a DTSO. With these, you could then have the following formation:

London <- DVT-TSO-TSO-DTSO-TSO-TSO-RFB-FO -> Oxford/Hereford
The electric loco would then be on the country end to Oxford, where it would have to run off to sidings to allow the diesel to come in and take the FO-RFB-TSO-TSO-DTSO section forward It would take slightly longer than the Bournemouth scenario (you'd have to swap locos, not just run an EMU into the back of the diesel one) but it is one answer, and probably the most energy effcient. You could have the DVT-TSO-TSO on the London end of my rake replaced by a single-ended EMU (a bit like like a Eurostar half-set) and put another streamlined driving vehicle on the other end which would attach to the diesel loco but that'd make it very odd-looking beyond the wires and (more importantly) add a 125mph crumple zone between the loco and the passengers on the Cotswolds.

That's all so complicated that I think a single fixed-formation EMU with a diesel loco hauling it beyond Oxford (like Pendos to Holyhead) is probably the most rational option, though I'd prefer to be as energy efficent as possible.

* Coaching Stock, with unpowered MU driving vehicles at both ends

Rhydgaled said:

While I like that idea, I very much doubt it is possible. Just taking the diesel engines out and making the cabs compatible with whatever locos you use wouldn't work (you'd have too many driving vehicles compared to the number of intermediate trailers) unless you could actually make them compatible with mark3s, which I doubt. It would probably be easier to convert the 180s and Voyagers to EMUs (probably not possible in itself) than make them compatable with mark3s.

Sorry, but that doesn't seem to make sense (the only bit that does is the blunt DVT (something like the driving vehicle on a 5-WES EMU)). Bournemouth, I thought (from what I've read on fourms), was an EMU + CS* from London, with the CS* at the Bournemouth end. At Bournemouth, a diesel loco is waiting and couples to the leading vehicle while the rear vehicle of the CS* is uncoupled from the EMU.

You could do the same sort of thing (although with all the carriages, and the weight of electric traction gear, going through to the Cotswolds) by using something like a 7-car 125mph EMU and having a diesel loco waiting at Oxford to haul it over the off-wire section (basicly exactly the same as Pendolinios to Holyhead).

If you want to split the train (and leave the electric traction gear behind) then I think we need something like the driving vehicle on a 5-WES, which I will call for the purpose of this disscusion a DTSO. With these, you could then have the following formation:

London <- DVT-TSO-TSO-DTSO-TSO-TSO-RFB-FO -> Oxford/Hereford
The electric loco would then be on the country end to Oxford, where it would have to run off to sidings to allow the diesel to come in and take the FO-RFB-TSO-TSO-DTSO section forward It would take slightly longer than the Bournemouth scenario (you'd have to swap locos, not just run an EMU into the back of the diesel one) but it is one answer, and probably the most energy effcient. You could have the DVT-TSO-TSO on the London end of my rake replaced by a single-ended EMU (a bit like like a Eurostar half-set) and put another streamlined driving vehicle on the other end which would attach to the diesel loco but that'd make it very odd-looking beyond the wires and (more importantly) add a 125mph crumple zone between the loco and the passengers on the Cotswolds.

That's all so complicated that I think a single fixed-formation EMU with a diesel loco hauling it beyond Oxford (like Pendos to Holyhead) is probably the most rational option, though I'd prefer to be as energy efficent as possible.

* Coaching Stock, with unpowered MU driving vehicles at both ends

Click to expand...

There were two types of multiple units on the Waterloo-Weymouth service.

REP was a 4-car EMU with buffet car and all vehicles powered, giving 3000 hp. TC was a 4-car unpowered set composed of, if I recall, DTSO+CK+BSK+DTSO.

The usual formation was REP+TC+TC with the REP at the London end of the train. At Bournemouth the REP was uncoupled and a class 33 attached, to haul the TC set(s) to Weymouth. In the reverse direction the TC unit(s) were pushed to Bournemouth, being driven from the front cab of the TC sets. At Bournemouth it would be coupled to a waiting REP unit to continue its journey to London.

Conversion of Voyager intermediate cars to make them compatible with mark 3 stock would involve providing them with the same electrical and braking systems, and the same coupling at the outer-ends of semi-permanently coupled sets.

This is not an operation to be undertaken lightly but would be worth considering when the units come up for mid-life overhaul. I would expect the Voyager bodyshells, which are steel, to be capable of lasting at least times as long as the traction equipment and other fitments.

The life expectancy of the aluminium bodied stock from the early nineties, on the other hand, is an unknown quantity.

RAGNARØKR said:

It is extraordinary the lengths that some people seem to want to go to to defend what is in many circumstances a bad design decision.

Click to expand...

What, as opposed to the lengths some will go to insisting that the length of IEP coaches is all wrong, when exactly the same process will be gone through as was done when 23m coaches first took to the tracks in the UK in the 1970s, of identifying locations where there could be clearance issues and dealing with them?

And now you seem to be admitting there actually are circumstances where multiple units might not need to be built with through gangways. Make your mind up.

As for your fantasies about push-pull and endless locomotive couplings and uncouplings at Oxford, go and sit down with a copy of the current Cotswold Line timetable, which has trains turning round at Charlbury, or Moreton-in-Marsh, or Worcester (both stations), or Great Malvern, or Hereford, then add in more trains to plug the current gaps in the service to give a basic hourly off-peak pattern at least as far as Worcester all day, which forms part of the DfT's planning for IEP services, plus cover the extra trains which run in the peaks, add in running at 110-115mph, which Network Rail is looking at for parts of the Cotswold Line for IEP, and try to work out how many diesel locomotives would be required to operate all those trains...

Don't forget to add in the cost of providing servicing facilities to support them, as there are none along the route other than basic overnight stabling, plus fuel at Worcester (at a depot that is flat out every night with the LM sets that are its bread and butter). Or work out what miles of light engine running to and from a depot will cost.

Oh, and remember you will need to find a diesel locomotive to do the job that likes station stops every seven or eight minutes, with hard accelerating and braking in between. Plus the engine to power it. The reason the Paxman Valenta lasted so long in HST power cars was that until the VP185 and MTU 4000s came along, there was nothing else around that could cope with the stresses of HST operations.

The Class 67 is not the locomotive for the job and I doubt that the new Vosslohs ordered by DRS will be either.

jimm said:

And now you seem to be admitting there actually are circumstances where multiple units might not need to be built with through gangways. Make your mind up.

Click to expand...

I can think of only one curcumstance when MUs wouldn't need through gangways, when they are sufficently long that multiple working would never be required. The present 9-car and 11-car Pendolinos are fine in this respect, as they are not expected to work in multiple, though I do think that, for efficiency reasons, an IC225-like solution (but with seated DVTs) would likely have been a slightly better choice.

Don't forget to add in the cost of providing servicing facilities to support them, as there are none along the route other than basic overnight stabling, plus fuel at Worcester (at a depot that is flat out every night with the LM sets that are its bread and butter). Or work out what miles of light engine running to and from a depot will cost.

Click to expand...

Would you need fuel at Worcester, is there already a fueling point at Oxford or Hereford which could be used instead?

Oh, and remember you will need to find a diesel locomotive to do the job that likes station stops every seven or eight minutes, with hard accelerating and braking in between.

Click to expand...

I've heard that one before, put rather agressively, which promted me to reluctantly decided that the planned IEP Cotswolds and Paddington - Westbury semi-fast services would have to be bi-modes of some discription. However, with the MML now set to be electrified and most of the ICWC bidders proposing replacment of Voyagers with an EMU + diesel loco solution a fair number of bi-mode-capable class 22x trains will hopefully become available. I think increasing the number of DGICMUs (Diesel-Guzzling InterCity Multiple Units) by ordering bi-mode IEP trains would therefore be a mistake. What I propose therefore is 7-car class 221 bi-modes, or either 7-car or 8-car class 222 bi-modes, for Cotswolds and Westbury services, with IEP being an electric-only train for the electrified main lines.

jimm said:

What, as opposed to the lengths some will go to insisting that the length of IEP coaches is all wrong, when exactly the same process will be gone through as was done when 23m coaches first took to the tracks in the UK in the 1970s, of identifying locations where there could be clearance issues and dealing with them?

Click to expand...

There are a number of justifications for doubting the sense in IEP's 26m vehicles. One being stepping distances on curved stations which could limit the platforms they could use, another being cost. Personally, I would hope that Network Rail have thought about the former but I still have concerns about the latter.

I recently received a reassuring letter which indicated that IEP guaging works would be carried out alongside clearance for a DMU cascade (of 165s and 166s I assume), a larger frieght guage and clearance required for electrification. However, I doubt either the Cotswolds line or the routes beyond Taunton are of much interest for frieght clearance and the former already takes class 166 units, the latter I doubt needs them. The opinion I have formed is that the 26m-vehicled IEP probably isn't a bad choice if it was ordered in electric-only form and hence only electrified lines (and the odd diversionary route, but not too many) get cleared.

If you don't need more DGICMUs, then why not use the ones you have instead of enlarging the loading guage of non-electrified lines for additional DGICMUs that are unecessary and that almost nobody in the industry is reported to want? If IEP bi-modes are ordered, then it is my opinion that an equivelent number of 22xs should be de-engined and converted to EMUs (which, as I said earlier, is probably not easy), consider how daft that is and hopefully you'll understand why I'm very displeased with the current IEP proposals.

Rhydgaled said:

I can think of only one curcumstance when MUs wouldn't need through gangways, when they are sufficently long that multiple working would never be required.

Click to expand...

Which doesn't sound like a multiple unit to me, as it is then too long to be coupled to anything. And does nothing to address disparities in loadings west of Oxford or Swindon for Gloucester/Cheltenham trains much of the day, hence ordering shorter IEPs.

Would you need fuel at Worcester, is there already a fueling point at Oxford or Hereford which could be used instead?

Click to expand...

No. That's why I said the only place there is fuel is Worcester. And no covered accommodation for doing all the other regular checks and servicing that trains need (LM sets go back to Tyseley for those).

I've heard that one before, put rather agressively, which promted me to reluctantly decided that the planned IEP Cotswolds and Paddington - Westbury semi-fast services would have to be bi-modes of some discription. However, with the MML now set to be electrified and most of the ICWC bidders proposing replacment of Voyagers with an EMU + diesel loco solution a fair number of bi-mode-capable class 22x trains will hopefully become available. I think increasing the number of DGICMUs (Diesel-Guzzling InterCity Multiple Units) by ordering bi-mode IEP trains would therefore be a mistake. What I propose therefore is 7-car class 221 bi-modes, or either 7-car or 8-car class 222 bi-modes, for Cotswolds and Westbury services, with IEP being an electric-only train for the electrified main lines.

Click to expand...

Aggressive or not, it's a rather basic point in operating the Cotswold Line. And due to the lousy design of 22x trains, your seven-car bi-mode (if it is technically feasible and the sums can be made to add up - a very big if) would fall short in terms of seating capacity compared with a five-car IEP (remember, passenger traffic is growing...) and have not a lot more than a 180 offers now. Never mind all the extra weight that would need to be lugged around compared with a shorter IEP - and all the diesel guzzled to shift all that weight.

There are a number of justifications for doubting the sense in IEP's 26m vehicles. One being stepping distances on curved stations which could limit the platforms they could use, another being cost. Personally, I would hope that Network Rail have thought about the former but I still have concerns about the latter.

Click to expand...

Yes, Network Rail have thought about platforms, clearances elsewhere and even the cost. It's their job.

If you don't need more DGICMUs, then why not use the ones you have instead of enlarging the loading guage of non-electrified lines for additional DGICMUs that are unecessary and that almost nobody in the industry is reported to want? If IEP bi-modes are ordered, then it is my opinion that an equivelent number of 22xs should be de-engined and converted to EMUs (which, as I said earlier, is probably not easy), consider how daft that is and hopefully you'll understand why I'm very displeased with the current IEP proposals.

Click to expand...

And what if you can't use the trains you have? As I said, a bi-mode 22x is still theoretical and they are only looking closely at the four-car 220s at the moment, not 221 or 222s of any length. And that's before you get to the question of seating capacity, which I noted above. And without diesel 22xs for a cascade, how do you move quickly to get rid of many 14xs as soon as possible? A rather more pressing concern for a lot of passengers than your displeasure about IEP, i'd suggest.

If acceleration is the issue against a diesel loco hauling an EMU, is it not viable to have the diesel power plant generating DC power for the EMU's electric motors and not just hotel power? As has been pointed out in these discussions before, there are few 125mph+ sections of line that aren't going to be wired up (and it figures...if the line is busy enough to warrant 125mph running, wires are probably justified!), so the arrangement probably only needs to be able to maintain 90-110mph, if that, and if the loco is only having to accelerate it's own mass (the EMU accelerating itself), then it surely wouldn't be much of an issue?

Rhydgaled said:

It would probably be easier to convert the 180s and Voyagers to EMUs (probably not possible in itself) than make them compatiable with mark3s.

Click to expand...

Sorry to be picky but 180s are Diesel-Hydraulic rather than Diesel-Electric, so EMU conversion is a no-no. Would be possible with Voyagers though.

mr_jrt said:

If acceleration is the issue against a diesel loco hauling an EMU, is it not viable to have the diesel power plant generating DC power for the EMU's electric motors and not just hotel power? As has been pointed out in these discussions before, there are few 125mph+ sections of line that aren't going to be wired up (and it figures...if the line is busy enough to warrant 125mph running, wires are probably justified!), so the arrangement probably only needs to be able to maintain 90-110mph, if that, and if the loco is only having to accelerate it's own mass (the EMU accelerating itself), then it surely wouldn't be much of an issue?

Click to expand...

That's an intriguing concept, has it ever been done anywhere? I like the sound of it though

I can't quite recall why certain people are wanting to convert the 180s/22Xs into coaching stock though, aside from removing the under-floor engines...

jimm said:

No. That's why I said the only place there is fuel is Worcester. And no covered accommodation for doing all the other regular checks and servicing that trains need (LM sets go back to Tyseley for those).

Click to expand...

There is still a lot of derelict land at the Worcester triangle upon which new facilities could be built for servicing trains. Just to the east of the current LMD.

Class172 said:

There is still a lot of derelict land at the Worcester triangle upon which new facilities could be built for servicing trains. Just to the east of the current LMD.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Sold off by the railway some time ago, so far as I know. See http://www.greatwesternbusinesspark.co.uk and apply the site plan to a Google satellite map, bearing in mind the plan is on its side, rather than north-south. Hansons and the Network Rail depot are at the southern end of the land nearest Shrub Hill station.

jimm said:

What, as opposed to the lengths some will go to insisting that the length of IEP coaches is all wrong, when exactly the same process will be gone through as was done when 23m coaches first took to the tracks in the UK in the 1970s, of identifying locations where there could be clearance issues and dealing with them?

And now you seem to be admitting there actually are circumstances where multiple units might not need to be built with through gangways. Make your mind up.

As for your fantasies about push-pull and endless locomotive couplings and uncouplings at Oxford, go and sit down with a copy of the current Cotswold Line timetable, which has trains turning round at Charlbury, or Moreton-in-Marsh, or Worcester (both stations), or Great Malvern, or Hereford, then add in more trains to plug the current gaps in the service to give a basic hourly off-peak pattern at least as far as Worcester all day, which forms part of the DfT's planning for IEP services, plus cover the extra trains which run in the peaks, add in running at 110-115mph, which Network Rail is looking at for parts of the Cotswold Line for IEP, and try to work out how many diesel locomotives would be required to operate all those trains...

Don't forget to add in the cost of providing servicing facilities to support them, as there are none along the route other than basic overnight stabling, plus fuel at Worcester (at a depot that is flat out every night with the LM sets that are its bread and butter). Or work out what miles of light engine running to and from a depot will cost.

Oh, and remember you will need to find a diesel locomotive to do the job that likes station stops every seven or eight minutes, with hard accelerating and braking in between. Plus the engine to power it. The reason the Paxman Valenta lasted so long in HST power cars was that until the VP185 and MTU 4000s came along, there was nothing else around that could cope with the stresses of HST operations.

The Class 67 is not the locomotive for the job and I doubt that the new Vosslohs ordered by DRS will be either.

Click to expand...

Normally, MU trains should be built with through gangways because it defeats part of the object of MU trains. But there may be circumstances where they may not.

Funny how you think it is OK to spend a vast pot of money on IEPs (BTW this is the Voyager thread) and all the associated works for the Cotwold line but not OK to ensure that a solution that makes the best of mostly existing resources is not.

Because of the lighter loadings beyond Oxford the trains have to be split anyway or run half empty. It is no great feat to accelerate, smartly, the length of train that would be needed for the Cotswold end of the route. We are talking about class 37 power levels. And with close station stops, what is the point of high speed running on the Cotswold line. How much time does it save compared to a 90 mph limit and at what cost?

RAGNARØKR;1235512 said:

Normally, MU trains should be built with through gangways because it defeats part of the object of MU trains. But there may be circumstances where they may not.

Funny how you think it is OK to spend a vast pot of money on IEPs (BTW this is the Voyager thread) and all the associated works for the Cotwold line but not OK to ensure that a solution that makes the best of mostly existing resources is not.

Because of the lighter loadings beyond Oxford the trains have to be split anyway or run half empty. It is no great feat to accelerate, smartly, the length of train that would be needed for the Cotswold end of the route. We are talking about class 37 power levels. And with close station stops, what is the point of high speed running on the Cotswold line. How much time does it save compared to a 90 mph limit and at what cost?

Click to expand...

And a thread on this website has never gone off in other directions? There are those such as Rhydgaled who advocate re-engineering of Voyagers in the future (never mind that it has yet to be shown to be feasible/affordable) to stop IEP bi-modes being built for the likes of the Cotswold Line. A bi-mode Voyager is not an existing resource, just an engineering study at present, so how can anyone make the best use of it?

All what associated works for IEPs on the Cotswold Line - and most of the GWML more generally? As far as Worcester Shrub Hill it is a former broad gauge route with wide lateral clearances. They might need to shave a bit off the platforms at Worcester Foregate Street and Colwall and Ledbury tunnels will be a squeeze but the need to allow for 26m coaches in future was factored into the design work for the recent track redoubling on the line's core section.

What lighter loadings past Oxford? Off-peak they are, and within the capabilities of a 180 or 166, but in the peaks, west of Oxford, eight-car high-capacity HSTs can be full and standing in standard class on several services. And the main Saturday morning and evening trains can be very busy, along with the procession of Sunday afternoon trains back to London. The same loading issues also apply between Swindon and Gloucester/Cheltenham.

In the light of that, I would like to see your locomotive with the power of a class 37 manage to push a dead nine-car IEP electric unit or something similar up Chipping Campden bank and keep to time, because that's what would be required of your diesel locomotives if IEPs were electric-only.

The route undoubtedly needs bi-mode IEPs longer than five coaches for the busier services but they should be single unit trains - something Hitachi are willing and able to produce, having done all the design work.

The point of high-speed running? At the moment, it often helps westbound trains to recover time they lose between London and Oxford for all manner of reasons. And with extra stops inserted in many services over recent years to deal with growing custom at places like Hanborough, it will help to get journey times back down again. If the trains are capable of it and the route will allow it, get on with it.

The Ham said:

It comes back to the problem that to split a loco hauled train needs time and space (as well as another loco which just spends all day sat at Oxford shunting empty stock). Given there are (off peak) 6 trains an hour each way through Oxford that doesn't leave a lot of time to move the coaches out of the way before the next train is due or move them to join up with a train, the gaps can be as close a 5 minutes (even less if the train is running late!). Even if you could shuffled platforms so that trains joined stock which had just been left it all has a dramatic impact on what services can run along the lines.

Also if you were to split train formations at a DVT then you still have the same crash requirements as any train that can run at 125mph on the faster lines, so no increase in seating capacity over a 125mph DMU (in fact length for length the DMU would have more seats). Plus the added complication of the fact that the DVT's for the high speed trains would have to be the right way around for each train to enable it to be facing the right way as it was joined up would make the logistics a nightmare (unless there is a quick and easy way of turning a rake of coaches around)

It also means that at every station where trains split with spare stock going to the sidings there has to be a spare loco (potentially more expensive than just building DUM's in the first place*) or the stock has to sit at a platform for the next train (waste of platform space and limits services that can be run).

* as for each station which requires a loco you need the fleet to be 6 coaches larger than the break-even point where building MU's would be the same cost. Add to that the running costs of said loco and the logistics of what has to happen when that loco needs maintaining or breaks down.

All in all the TOC's would probably favour fixed length loco hauled trains like the IC125's and IC225's (effectively making them a MU) or MU which can be joined and split with ease at any station where there are the right staff.

Click to expand...

You don't need a loco to sit all day anywhere. The loco that has just come in takes the next train out. You need a short spur to stand the loco in for a few minutes, which gives the crew time to go to the lavatory. This was normal procedure for years at Bournemouth Central. There was no shunting of stock all day long. The split-join procedure takes less than five minutes which is a normal stopping time at a place like Oxford. The alternative is to run a nearly empty train to Worcester and back, when the stock could go straight back to London with a full load.

You are imagining complications and logistical nightmares which can be solved with smart organisation. There is no need for 125 mph running beyond Didcot. London to Oxford rakes can have a pointed DVT at the country end. The London to Worcester rakes have a section with the electric loco and trailer which does not go beyond Oxford, and the bit that goes all the way to Worcester, which has a non-gangway driving trailer at the country end and a gangway driving trailer at the London end, which is used when the train is propelled back to Oxford. Same principle as the Waterloo-Bournemouth-Weymouth route from 1967 to 1988. This should be the normal method of operation where lines are part-electrified.

To build special new electric trains with supplementary diesel engines is the extravagance when there are hundreds of vehicles with a life of between 20 and 40 years which can continue in service with locomotive haulage.

Given that London to Paddington is a commuter route, what is the station dwell time of the IEPs going to look like?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

jimm said:

What lighter loadings past Oxford? Off-peak they are, and within the capabilities of a 180 or 166, but in the peaks, west of Oxford, eight-car high-capacity HSTs can be full and standing in standard class on several services. And the main Saturday morning and evening trains can be very busy, along with the procession of Sunday afternoon trains back to London. The same loading issues also apply between Swindon and Gloucester/Cheltenham.

In the light of that, I would like to see your locomotive with the power of a class 37 manage to push a dead nine-car IEP electric unit or something similar up Chipping Campden bank and keep to time, because that's what would be required of your diesel locomotives if IEPs were electric-only.

The route undoubtedly needs bi-mode IEPs longer than five coaches for the busier services but they should be single unit trains - something Hitachi are willing and able to produce, having done all the design work.

The point of high-speed running? At the moment, it often helps westbound trains to recover time they lose between London and Oxford for all manner of reasons. And with extra stops inserted in many services over recent years to deal with growing custom at places like Hanborough, it will help to get journey times back down again. If the trains are capable of it and the route will allow it, get on with it.

Click to expand...

It isn't my class 37. This does not need to get personal. If a class 37 is not up to the task then it will have to be a class 67 or whatever. But hauling dead electric trains around with diesels is even more wasteful than diesel operation under the wires, and running around dead diesel engines under the wires is not clever either when you think about it, what with the initial cost and the waste of energy. And how are 3000hp going to be fitted under the floor of a 7 car IEP? If it is, that is a lot of weight to carry around on electrified routes where it will not be needed.

Frequent stopping needs good acceleration, not high top speeds. If there really is a need for nine car trains beyond Oxford, this is surely unusual. If it is not, then the electrification needs to go beyond Oxford as well with the train splitting there. Moreton-in-Marsh perhaps? Or possibly all the way to Worcester? Or run additional stopping trains between Oxford and Worcester using ordinary DMUs. Presumably there will be class 165/166 spare.

The more one looks at it the less sense does IEP make.

RAGNARØKR;1235866 said:

The more one looks at it the less sense does IEP make.

Click to expand...

No, the more one reads your replies, the less sense do they make

I will go further
I was a major IEP skeptic, I assumed it would be a failure and that anything coming from central government planning will never work, and they should instead build mini-pendolinos and lug them with diesels as needed.

Your lunatic crusade against it and the arguments you have put forward have utterly convinced me that IEP is the right answer. Congrats.

DXMachina said:

No, the more one reads your replies, the less sense do they make

I will go further
I was a major IEP skeptic, I assumed it would be a failure and that anything coming from central government planning will never work, and they should instead build mini-pendolinos and lug them with diesels as needed.

Your lunatic crusade against it and the arguments you have put forward have utterly convinced me that IEP is the right answer. Congrats.

Click to expand...

hock: You're right! The thing is, I'm so confused right now that I need a table listing the pros and cons of LHCS as an IEP alternative - Care to edit one in, OP?

I'll see if I can do one later, if anybody else would find it useful.

RAGNARØKR;1235866 said:

You don't need a loco to sit all day anywhere. The loco that has just come in takes the next train out. You need a short spur to stand the loco in for a few minutes, which gives the crew time to go to the lavatory. This was normal procedure for years at Bournemouth Central. There was no shunting of stock all day long. The split-join procedure takes less than five minutes which is a normal stopping time at a place like Oxford. The alternative is to run a nearly empty train to Worcester and back, when the stock could go straight back to London with a full load.

Click to expand...

But you still haven't answered my question about how many locomotives you think would be needed to cover services turning back at half-a-dozen places west of Oxford and about the different frequencies and flows across the day. You make it all sound so easy. And if it is, why do most push-pull services here and abroad (East Coast, Norwich, West Coast pre-390s, Austria's Railjets, etc) use semi-fixed formations, with precious little splitting and coupling even of the locos, never mind the coaches?

You are imagining complications and logistical nightmares which can be solved with smart organisation. There is no need for 125 mph running beyond Didcot.

Click to expand...

And when smart organisation meets the real world, where things go wrong on occasion? As for 125mph running, that is your opinion, nothing more. My opinion is different, based on riding on trains that are already able to benefit from 100mph running and have done for years.

Same principle as the Waterloo-Bournemouth-Weymouth route from 1967 to 1988. This should be the normal method of operation where lines are part-electrified.

Click to expand...

What happened between Bournemouth and Weymouth was a clever stop-gap, dreamed up because British Rail could not afford to continue electrification to Weymouth in 1967. When they came up with a cut-price way to achieve this in the 1980s, they did it.

To build special new electric trains with supplementary diesel engines is the extravagance when there are hundreds of vehicles with a life of between 20 and 40 years which can continue in service with locomotive haulage.

Click to expand...

Those vehicles will require considerable expenditure to run for even 20 more years. Chiltern's work on the Mk3s doesn't come cheap and was designed to fit their specific needs, so more design work would be needed if you are going to life-extend HST trailers, to come up with something better suited to long-distance work such as West Country expresses.

It isn't my class 37. This does not need to get personal. If a class 37 is not up to the task then it will have to be a class 67 or whatever. But hauling dead electric trains around with diesels is even more wasteful than diesel operation under the wires, and running around dead diesel engines under the wires is not clever either when you think about it, what with the initial cost and the waste of energy. And how are 3000hp going to be fitted under the floor of a 7 car IEP? If it is, that is a lot of weight to carry around on electrified routes where it will not be needed.

Click to expand...

No-one else was talking about a Class 37. I have already pointed out that a 67 is not suitable, it was principally designed for long runs at speed on mail trains. The five-car IEP bi-mode will have 2,820hp under the floor, courtesy of three MTU 12V 1600 R80L engines. An eight or nine-car version (no seven-car is planned) would have five of these engines, so 4,700hp.

Frequent stopping needs good acceleration, not high top speeds. If there really is a need for nine car trains beyond Oxford, this is surely unusual. If it is not, then the electrification needs to go beyond Oxford as well with the train splitting there. Moreton-in-Marsh perhaps? Or possibly all the way to Worcester? Or run additional stopping trains between Oxford and Worcester using ordinary DMUs. Presumably there will be class 165/166 spare.

Click to expand...

Unusual but true. Maybe find out about real-life operating conditions before theorising about what trains a route might need.

Electrification will not go to go beyond Oxford for a long time, with the other key services around the Worcester area - XC on Birmingham-Bristol/Cardiff and LM services from Birmingham (on both routes) almost all operated by modern diesel trains (220, 221, 170, 172), so there's no bonus from early electrification by tying it in with replacement of elderly diesel units. Even FGW's 150s and 153s working from Bristol still have plenty of miles left in them.

Breaking journeys at Oxford is not popular with passengers, use of the Cotswold line has boomed over the past 20 years since Turbos arrived, with almost all trains running to/from London ever since. Lots of people travel through Oxford to/from Reading and London. And any 'spare' 165s and 166s will be going west to help cascade 15x sets to replace railbuses, with IEP bi-modes working the Cotswold Line in the future without all the carry-on your notions would require.

jimm said:

Which doesn't sound like a multiple unit to me, as it is then too long to be coupled to anything. And does nothing to address disparities in loadings west of Oxford or Swindon for Gloucester/Cheltenham trains much of the day, hence ordering shorter IEPs.

Click to expand...

Well, a Pendolino is too long to be coupled to anything but it doesn't have a loco so do we call it a multiple unit or something else? Or are you saying if a train is that long it should have been LHCS (I can't remember which side of that argument you took). While it may not address disparities in loadings west of Oxford or Swindon, running a longer fixed formation train rather than two MUs in multiple (given you need a 125mph top speed into Paddington) helps to address disparity in loadings between the two ends of a train by allowing passengers to walk the full length of it. As I've said before, there tends to be rather fewer passengers in the rear unit of Manchester Metrolink trams when they run in multiple.

Aggressive or not, it's a rather basic point in operating the Cotswold Line. And due to the lousy design of 22x trains, your seven-car bi-mode (if it is technically feasible and the sums can be made to add up - a very big if) would fall short in terms of seating capacity compared with a five-car IEP (remember, passenger traffic is growing...) and have not a lot more than a 180 offers now. Never mind all the extra weight that would need to be lugged around compared with a shorter IEP - and all the diesel guzzled to shift all that weight.

Click to expand...

Yes, the pasenger capacity of Voyagers is supposedly rather poor for the length. The additional vehicles (pantograph cars) I propose for Voyagers would have no toilets, to compensate for the disabled ones in the existing coaches. Would that make the train have enough seats?

I would expect that converting the whole 22x fleet to bi-mode would be more cost effective and technically achivable than the alternative of taking the diesel engines out of 22xs (either putting new panto cars in to make them EMUs, converting them to hauled stock or withdrawing them early) to power new IEP bi-modes (is that what you want, or are you an advocate of DaFT's plans for an unecessary increase in the number of DGICMUs?).

And what if you can't use the trains you have? As I said, a bi-mode 22x is still theoretical and they are only looking closely at the four-car 220s at the moment, not 221 or 222s of any length.

Click to expand...

Theoretical yes, but although it is only 220s they are looking at at the moment I believe when orriginally raised the proposal was for ICWC's class 221s. That suggests it is possible to convert both classes (though 221s would be more expensive since they are expected to need 2 additional vehicles rather than 1).

And that's before you get to the question of seating capacity, which I noted above. And without diesel 22xs for a cascade, how do you move quickly to get rid of many 14xs as soon as possible? A rather more pressing concern for a lot of passengers than your displeasure about IEP, i'd suggest.

Click to expand...

And how could you use 22xs to get rid of Pacers without making them bi-mode? Passenger numbers are growing just about everywhere, and a 4-car 158 has almost as many seats as a 5-car 221 and is nicer to travel on, more fuel efficient and can be portion-worked. You're probably going to need to lengthen the Voyagers into bi-modes (or convert them into hauled stock that is compatible with other hauled stock, but that is probably impossible as I've already said) to make them useful for anything. If you don't lengthen them somehow, a 220 would have less standard class seats than a 3-car regional Express DMU (175 or 158) so could only be used to release 2-car units, which would probably be even more enviromentally perverse than IEP as it stands, and that's saying something.

An internal cascade within XC releasing the Turbostars to directly replace Pacers might just work, which would take the 221s from ICWC. The 222s (assuming they are released from MML not retained with pantograph cars added) however would still be available. How would a 7-car 222 (with first/standard ratio rebalanced, giving around 300 standard class seats) compare for the loadings on Cotswolds services?

Anyway, the ValleyLines electrification in itself will be enough to replace all Pacers outside of Northern. The Welsh ones will be replaced directly and Wales should also then be able to spare eight 150s to replace Great Western's 8 143s. You then have a cascade of the best part of 57 class 166/165 DMUs from the Thames Valley electrification, although my guess is they'll be used to boost service frequencies (Bristol Metro maybe) rather than releasing much else, maybe a few 150s/153s. London Midland should be able to spare some of their Sprinters though given one of the routes in the HLOS electrification plan.

DAB_Move said:

Sorry to be picky but 180s are Diesel-Hydraulic rather than Diesel-Electric, so EMU conversion is a no-no. Would be possible with Voyagers though.

Click to expand...

I am aware you couldn't make a 180 bi-mode. However, if removing the diesel engines from 180s is possible you would probably need to strip so much out that putting in EMU traction systems wouldn't be impossible. As I said though, removing the diesel engines is likely too much of a challange. I don't know about these things though, so it might still be impossible.

I can't quite recall why certain people are wanting to convert the 180s/22Xs into coaching stock though, aside from removing the under-floor engines...

Click to expand...

They aren't long enough as it is, and the engines (and their dreadful fuel ecconomy) need to go if I'm to accept new diesel engines under IEP.

jimm said:

And a thread on this website has never gone off in other directions? There are those such as Rhydgaled who advocate re-engineering of Voyagers in the future (never mind that it has yet to be shown to be feasible/affordable) to stop IEP bi-modes being built for the likes of the Cotswold Line.

Click to expand...

Yep, still clinging on to the edges of the topic because that's my answer to the orriginal question of what to do with Voyagers, try and find a way of using them to keep diesel engines out of IEP.

What lighter loadings past Oxford? Off-peak they are, and within the capabilities of a 180 or 166, but in the peaks, west of Oxford, eight-car high-capacity HSTs can be full and standing in standard class on several services. And the main Saturday morning and evening trains can be very busy, along with the procession of Sunday afternoon trains back to London. The same loading issues also apply between Swindon and Gloucester/Cheltenham.

Click to expand...

Sounds like INTERCITY 125s will need to be kept on the busiest Cheltenham and Hereford trains anyway (given that GW isn't planned to get IEP bi-modes longer than 5-car), so less IEP frequency to provide justification for guage clearance.

RAGNARØKR;1235866 said:

But hauling dead electric trains around with diesels is even more wasteful than diesel operation under the wires, and running around dead diesel engines under the wires is not clever either when you think about it, what with the initial cost and the waste of energy. And how are 3000hp going to be fitted under the floor of a 7 car IEP? If it is, that is a lot of weight to carry around on electrified routes where it will not be needed.

Click to expand...

I need a physicist, how do I put the following in order of which produces the most greenhouse gas?:

• Hauling a dead electric train with a diesel locomotive from the limit of wires
• Running an INTERCITY 125 under the wires so you can continue beyond
• Running a Voyager under the wires so you can continue beyond (I'm looking at you, First Group, with your ICWC franchise bid) - this will almost certainly produce more greenhouse gas than an IC125, though it is probably dependant on train lengths
• Running a bi-mode IEP with the weight of many diesel-horsepowers being carried dead under the wires (bearing in mind that Voyagers may continue their current emmisions if IEP bi-mode comes)
• Running a bi-mode 22x wit the weight of many diesel-horsepowers being carried dead under the wires

Frequent stopping needs good acceleration, not high top speeds. If there really is a need for nine car trains beyond Oxford, this is surely unusual. If it is not, then the electrification needs to go beyond Oxford as well with the train splitting there. Moreton-in-Marsh perhaps? Or possibly all the way to Worcester? Or run additional stopping trains between Oxford and Worcester using ordinary DMUs. Presumably there will be class 165/166 spare.

The more one looks at it the less sense does IEP make.

Click to expand...

I also got aggressive remarks when I suggested class 166s/165 connections from Oxford replace most of the Cotswolds' London trains. If you where running both a local stopper and an hourly London fast service then you would probably have a strong case for electrification. Personally, I think an hourly INTERCITY service is enough to justify wires on its own but there is a limit to how fast you can put the wires up and there are lines with 125mph running of more-frequent trains (or which are closer to the limit of electrification, like Cheltenham) that need wires first.

pesonally my thoughts are that as we are getting both kinds of IEP, like it or not that voyagers shotld be gutted internally, rebuilt with better use of space and used on runs like TPE, Scotrail express workings, SWT as 158+159 replacement and EMT. The TPE Fleat could be 121s with tilt for Scotland Manchester and the remainder could be re enginered for slower running and therefor remove the need for larger crumple zones.

Internally there could be one disabled loo in one of the driving cars which could be subdivided intf part first and part standard prioritty seating with wheel chair areas in both meaning other toilets could be standard.
The other driving car could contain a micro buffet and a luggage area and the much smaller vestibules could be similar in design to the origional MK4S Pre Malard with plenty tipup seats.

Why would you replace the SWT 159's with Voyagers? They seem ideally suited to the route they are on already - easy to work in multiple, comfortable, nicely refurbished. They are just nice units. Nicer than Voyagers. I'd rather sit on a 159 on an XC service than a Voyager if I had the choice..

Rhydgaled said:

Well, a Pendolino is too long to be coupled to anything but it doesn't have a loco so do we call it a multiple unit or something else? Or are you saying if a train is that long it should have been LHCS (I can't remember which side of that argument you took). While it may not address disparities in loadings west of Oxford or Swindon, running a longer fixed formation train rather than two MUs in multiple (given you need a 125mph top speed into Paddington) helps to address disparity in loadings between the two ends of a train by allowing passengers to walk the full length of it. As I've said before, there tends to be rather fewer passengers in the rear unit of Manchester Metrolink trams when they run in multiple.

Click to expand...

I'd call it a unit train, or a distributed power train. An HST most certainly isn't a multiple unit. People don't walk up and down trains in the frenzied manner you seem to believe they do. Especially not with heavy luggage. Even when conductors announce there are seats in particular coaches many people remain standing where they are.

Yes, the pasenger capacity of Voyagers is supposedly rather poor for the length. The additional vehicles (pantograph cars) I propose for Voyagers would have no toilets, to compensate for the disabled ones in the existing coaches. Would that make the train have enough seats?

Click to expand...

No, unless you forgot about any doors, or toilets, or luggage racks in such vehicles, because the seating capacity of the existing vehicles is so pathetic.

I would expect that converting the whole 22x fleet to bi-mode would be more cost effective and technically achivable than the alternative of taking the diesel engines out of 22xs (either putting new panto cars in to make them EMUs, converting them to hauled stock or withdrawing them early) to power new IEP bi-modes (is that what you want, or are you an advocate of DaFT's plans for an unecessary increase in the number of DGICMUs?).

Click to expand...

Oh, you'd expect it would you? Well DfT has yet to agree to even a few 220s being converted, so don't hold your breath waiting for all 22xs to be converted. I am an advocate of whatever is the most straightforward and obvious way to continue to provide a frequent inter-city quality service to the Cotswold Line, Gloucester and Cheltenham, where electrification is still some years off. And the IEP bi-mode looks the best way to achieve that. Even if a monster 22x bi-mode is possible and affordable, it still comes with all the problems that the basic design of those trains presents.

Theoretical yes, but although it is only 220s they are looking at at the moment I believe when orriginally raised the proposal was for ICWC's class 221s. That suggests it is possible to convert both classes (though 221s would be more expensive since they are expected to need 2 additional vehicles rather than 1).

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should wait until it is decided whether to go ahead with a 220 conversion and what it will cost before you keep presenting a theory as a cast-iron cure-all.

And how could you use 22xs to get rid of Pacers without making them bi-mode? Passenger numbers are growing just about everywhere, and a 4-car 158 has almost as many seats as a 5-car 221 and is nicer to travel on, more fuel efficient and can be portion-worked. You're probably going to need to lengthen the Voyagers into bi-modes (or convert them into hauled stock that is compatible with other hauled stock, but that is probably impossible as I've already said) to make them useful for anything. If you don't lengthen them somehow, a 220 would have less standard class seats than a 3-car regional Express DMU (175 or 158) so could only be used to release 2-car units, which would probably be even more enviromentally perverse than IEP as it stands, and that's saying something.

Click to expand...

I would use 22xs to displace other diesel sets, such as 170s and 158s from inter-urban trains to allow 150s, 153s, 155 and 156s to replace railbuses. It's not difficult and it doesn't need all this re-engineering of 22xs you are obsessed with. I'm afraid that diesels are going to be around on railways here and abroad for a very long time, whether you like it or not. A Parry People Mover may be fine for the Stourbridge branch but it has yet to prove its mettle somewhere like Liskeard-Looe.

An internal cascade within XC releasing the Turbostars to directly replace Pacers might just work, which would take the 221s from ICWC. The 222s (assuming they are released from MML not retained with pantograph cars added) however would still be available. How would a 7-car 222 (with first/standard ratio rebalanced, giving around 300 standard class seats) compare for the loadings on Cotswolds services?

Click to expand...

Do I really need to spell it out? An high-capacity FGW HST with a kitchen-buffet seats about 500 people, the newly-extended high-capacity eight-car sets with a mini-buffet seat almost 580. Knock off 100 or so for first class (but bear in mind that Cotswold Line first class also gets busy in the peaks) and your 222 is not even at the races against the existing HSTs with 380-460 standard seats and with no more standard seats than a five-car IEP.

That's why I believe that there should be a limited number of eight or nine car IEP bi-modes built to work these key peak trains, which could then cover London-Oxford/Swindon trains that don't extend to the Cotswolds or Cheltenham during the off-peak, with the off-peak workings going further west being made up of 2xfive-car sets dividing/joining at Oxford/Swindon to match demand. Plus you also get an all-IEP railway, making best use of the wires where they exist, not the muddle that would ensue with keeping HSTs on these routes - see below.

Sounds like INTERCITY 125s will need to be kept on the busiest Cheltenham and Hereford trains anyway (given that GW isn't planned to get IEP bi-modes longer than 5-car), so less IEP frequency to provide justification for guage clearance.

Click to expand...

What gauge clearance? Many places don't need it, as I said they are ex-broad gauge, in others it can be/must be done in conjunction with electrification anyway.

I need a physicist, how do I put the following in order of which produces the most greenhouse gas?:

• Hauling a dead electric train with a diesel locomotive from the limit of wires
• Running an INTERCITY 125 under the wires so you can continue beyond
• Running a Voyager under the wires so you can continue beyond (I'm looking at you, First Group, with your ICWC franchise bid) - this will almost certainly produce more greenhouse gas than an IC125, though it is probably dependant on train lengths
• Running a bi-mode IEP with the weight of many diesel-horsepowers being carried dead under the wires (bearing in mind that Voyagers may continue their current emmisions if IEP bi-mode comes)
• Running a bi-mode 22x wit the weight of many diesel-horsepowers being carried dead under the wires

Click to expand...

:roll:

I also got aggressive remarks when I suggested class 166s/165 connections from Oxford replace most of the Cotswolds' London trains. If you where running both a local stopper and an hourly London fast service then you would probably have a strong case for electrification. Personally, I think an hourly INTERCITY service is enough to justify wires on its own but there is a limit to how fast you can put the wires up and there are lines with 125mph running of more-frequent trains (or which are closer to the limit of electrification, like Cheltenham) that need wires first.

Click to expand...

Maybe if you didn't post ideas which fly the face of the facts and with what looks like zero knowledge of the journeys passengers are actually making on a route, people might not react in that way.

The route from Swindon to Gloucester and Cheltenham is nothing like as busy as the Cotswold Line, so why on earth should it be electrified first? Just the same as the Cotswold Line, it will not get anywhere near being electrified until XC is wired between Birmingham and Bristol.

This thread really has covered all the bases, hasn't it?

In honesty, I don't think there'll be much change in what routes the Voyagers run for quite some time. At best, we would see the ICWC franchisee replacing theirs with baby Pendos and diesel drags off the wires, but that's not going to free up an awful lot. It would allow XC to get rid of their HST diagrams and possibly strengthen up a couple of core services here and there, but that's about it.

A lot of what happens next depends on what's actually delivered by IEP. At the most basic end, all it's going to do is displace some HST sets. Perhaps some of these could go to XC so they can cascade some Voyagers to release their Turbostars for redeployment elsewhere.

On the other extreme, IEP could (potentially) replace all the HST, IC225 and Meridian sets from GWML, ECML and MML, as well as some XC Voyagers. This of course is terribly unlikely, but it shows the other side of the coin. That would give an awful lot of flexibility for cascading sets to eventually displace Pacers at the other end. Of course, one assumes the reality will be somewhere in between.

The proposal to use hybrid e-Voyagers alongside an electric-only IEP is a really nice idea. Reduce the complexity of the IEP project as well as make better use of the existing 22x sets. The only problem is that all the Voyagers are already spoken for. Where would you get 22x sets for GWML and ECML running? (I'm assuming you'd use e-Meridians on the MML) All I can think of is to give XC a bunch of HSTs in exchange for them. This might not actually be such a crazy idea, but the HSTs aren't going to go on forever, so some future plan for replacing XC HSTs would still need to be considered.

Of course, the process of hybridising the Voyagers with additional vehicles could potentially free up some sets for use elsewhere. If a five-car set is really going to need two additional trailers, I'd consider mixing the existing sets into four- and six-car variants, so you'd only need an of average 1.5 new trailers per Super Voyager, creating a mixture of five- and eight-car hybrid-221s. That way, a single 8-car set could perform the duties of a pair of 4/5 car sets, freeing up a 5-car set for use elsewhere.

As for the idea of converting a load of vehicles into LHCS, I do actually think there's some merit to the idea, but certainly not now. Maybe in about 20-odd years time, when the diesel power plants in the Voyagers really are becoming obsolete, assuming the bodyshells are still in good condition, converting them to loco-hauled sets isn't necessarily a bad idea. Certainly I expect to see some HST trailers go this way when the power cars finally start to bite the dust.

DXMachina said:

No, the more one reads your replies, the less sense do they make

I will go further
I was a major IEP skeptic, I assumed it would be a failure and that anything coming from central government planning will never work, and they should instead build mini-pendolinos and lug them with diesels as needed.

Your lunatic crusade against it and the arguments you have put forward have utterly convinced me that IEP is the right answer. Congrats.

Click to expand...

What, at £2.7 million per vehicle, plus infrastructure works to get it to fit on a little bit of the system? Sir Andrew Foster was wrong, Roger Ford is wrong, Bombardier is wrong and the rest of the industry is wrong for not wanting the thing. And the three existing ROSCOs were wrong for not being interested in financing it and Alstom was wrong for not even being interested in bidding on the DfT's spec.

It certainly should not be a failure given the amount of money thrown at the project.

RAGNARØKR;1235866 said:

Given that London to Paddington is a commuter route, what is the station dwell time of the IEPs going to look like?

Click to expand...

Finally - something we agree on - London to Paddington is a commuter route

Blindtraveler said:

The TPE Fleat could be 121s with tilt for Scotland Manchester

Click to expand...

Enthusiasts would love that

AndyLandy said:

This thread really has covered all the bases, hasn't it?

Click to expand...

Yup - Michael Palin may have gone full circle, but this thread has gone round and round and round

tbtc said:

Finally - something we agree on - London to Paddington is a commuter route

Click to expand...

Indeed, there must be vast numbers of people each day who are at London Paddington, but wish to be somewhere else within London, or vice-versa.

jimm said:

But you still haven't answered my question about how many locomotives you think would be needed to cover services turning back at half-a-dozen places west of Oxford and about the different frequencies and flows across the day. You make it all sound so easy. And if it is, why do most push-pull services here and abroad (East Coast, Norwich, West Coast pre-390s, Austria's Railjets, etc) use semi-fixed formations, with precious little splitting and coupling even of the locos, never mind the coaches?

And when smart organisation meets the real world, where things go wrong on occasion? As for 125mph running, that is your opinion, nothing more. My opinion is different, based on riding on trains that are already able to benefit from 100mph running and have done for years.

What happened between Bournemouth and Weymouth was a clever stop-gap, dreamed up because British Rail could not afford to continue electrification to Weymouth in 1967. When they came up with a cut-price way to achieve this in the 1980s, they did it.

Those vehicles will require considerable expenditure to run for even 20 more years. Chiltern's work on the Mk3s doesn't come cheap and was designed to fit their specific needs, so more design work would be needed if you are going to life-extend HST trailers, to come up with something better suited to long-distance work such as West Country expresses.

No-one else was talking about a Class 37. I have already pointed out that a 67 is not suitable, it was principally designed for long runs at speed on mail trains. The five-car IEP bi-mode will have 2,820hp under the floor, courtesy of three MTU 12V 1600 R80L engines. An eight or nine-car version (no seven-car is planned) would have five of these engines, so 4,700hp.

Unusual but true. Maybe find out about real-life operating conditions before theorising about what trains a route might need.

Electrification will not go to go beyond Oxford for a long time, with the other key services around the Worcester area - XC on Birmingham-Bristol/Cardiff and LM services from Birmingham (on both routes) almost all operated by modern diesel trains (220, 221, 170, 172), so there's no bonus from early electrification by tying it in with replacement of elderly diesel units. Even FGW's 150s and 153s working from Bristol still have plenty of miles left in them.

Breaking journeys at Oxford is not popular with passengers, use of the Cotswold line has boomed over the past 20 years since Turbos arrived, with almost all trains running to/from London ever since. Lots of people travel through Oxford to/from Reading and London. And any 'spare' 165s and 166s will be going west to help cascade 15x sets to replace railbuses, with IEP bi-modes working the Cotswold Line in the future without all the carry-on your notions would require.

Click to expand...

So uselessly lugging around 2800 hp of expensive diesel power for half the distance, and uselessly lugging around a load of expensive electrical equipment for the other half. To say nothing of all the maintenance of five engines, five fuel tanks to be kept filled up, five sets of coolants to be checked, etc, etc, etc. And passengers in five of the vehicles sitting on top of a huge throbbing diesel.

Either the service is getting very busy, in which case the route, or the busiest part, is worth electrifying, or it is not. If it is a matter of a running a handful of through trains then a residue of HST running under the wires is not a catastrophe, and more energy-efficient to boot. The same situation will remain on the direct route to Exeter for years. IEP is an expensive and complicated stop-gap.

The key with loco-haulage is semi-fixed formations. That buys the flexibility. At less than £3 million a go, the price is about the same as a single IEP car, with the flexibility that they can drag anything.

In this neck of the woods, most loco haulage is front-end power, often with some very elderly rolling stock. There are some services run with a loco at both ends. The same locos are used for freight. The only push-pull units are X2000 with between 5 and 7 trailers and sometimes running as doubles. SJ do not appear to have great difficulty in making up trains to different lengths. Have the Brits forgotten how to couple and uncouple vehicles?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

tbtc said:

Finally - something we agree on - London to Paddington is a commuter route

Enthusiasts would love that

Yup - Michael Palin may have gone full circle, but this thread has gone round and round and round

Click to expand...

Of course it is the Cotwold line to Paddington is a commuter route, which raises yet another question about the wretched IEP and its station dwell time. Wait and see.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rhydgaled said:

I need a physicist, how do I put the following in order of which produces the most greenhouse gas?:

Click to expand...

• Running an INTERCITY 125 under the wires so you can continue beyond
• Running a Voyager under the wires so you can continue beyond
• Hauling a dead electric train with a diesel locomotive from the limit of wires
• Running a bi-mode IEP with the weight of many diesel-horsepowers being carried dead under the wires
• Running a bi-mode 22x wit the weight of many diesel-horsepowers being carried dead under the wires

But don't forget the embodied energy too. Also, running a reasonably efficient diesel train under the wires uses less energy than running an electric train. But if you are concerned about energy-efficiency you do not drag heavy equipment around uselessly over long distances. The "Last Mile" TRAXX, which is a similar concept to the class 73, takes bi-mode as far as it is worth taking it.

AndyLandy said:

Indeed, there must be vast numbers of people each day who are at London Paddington, but wish to be somewhere else within London, or vice-versa.

Click to expand...

Maybe we should dust down some 37s to take people from Paddington into London?

RAGNARØKR;1236443 said:

The key with loco-haulage is semi-fixed formations

Click to expand...

I thought you were boasting of loco-hauled allowing total flexibility recently?

The ability to split/ join without complicated shunting moves (or spare trains) shows that multiple units are much better at flexibility.

RAGNARØKR;1236443 said:

Of course it is the Cotwold line to Paddington is a commuter route,

Click to expand...

You might want to read what I was quoting again

RAGNARØKR;1236411 said:

What, at £2.7 million per vehicle, plus infrastructure works to get it to fit on a little bit of the system? Sir Andrew Foster was wrong, Roger Ford is wrong, Bombardier is wrong and the rest of the industry is wrong for not wanting the thing. And the three existing ROSCOs were wrong for not being interested in financing it and Alstom was wrong for not even being interested in bidding on the DfT's spec...

Click to expand...

Huh, IEP/SET is a Hitachi product... Although Bombardier/Siemens had bid for the contract.

... And the taxpayer is wrong for financing the railways? We need to bring costs down, if continental Europe is using 26m stock, then that's one more thing in common. I was somewhat against the project at first, but it will benefit us in the long term with greater capacity and fewer parts required in an overall set, increasing reliability.

tbtc said:

The ability to split/join without complicated shunting moves (or spare trains) shows that multiple units are much better at flexibility.

... You might want to read what I was quoting again.

Click to expand...

Is there any point, he keeps contradicting himself...

RAGNARØKR;1236443 said:

But don't forget the embodied energy too. Also, running a reasonably efficient diesel train under the wires uses less energy than running an electric train.

Click to expand...

If diesel vehicles are a whole lot more efficient than electric variants, why are we using/developing the latter? Especially with regenerative braking and the solid nuclear power we should/will/must have. All diesel-engined trains above 100/110mph in the UK (apart from the 180) have electric traction anyway - the only thing needed to convert Voyagers (or even 43s, I believe) would be pantographs/transformer equipment.

But if you are concerned about energy-efficiency you do not drag heavy equipment around uselessly over long distances. The "Last Mile" TRAXX, which is a similar concept to the class 73, takes bi-mode as far as it is worth taking it.

Click to expand...

Isn't that a small engine for shunting at up to 30mph? And anyway, diesel-electric trains are A LOT more efficient running on electric than on diesel, otherwise we wouldn't have electric railways, like I said.

I'd very much like to see some citations for many of the claims stated here as fact...

Firstly, I find it staggering to think that the traction equipment on an EMU is so heavy that loco-hauling beyond the wires is less efficient than running a diesel under the wires.

I'm also intrigued by this claim that diesel trains are more efficient than electric ones. The statement is pretty nebulous to begin with. Which specific vehicles are being compared here? Secondly, surely the efficiencies of an EMU and an equivalent DEMU will be pretty similar. All that's different is the power source (so surely carrying a load of heavy fuel will penalise the DEMU? Or are we suggesting that DMMUs are more efficient? Again, I'd be skeptical of that claim, too)

Goatboy said:

Why would you replace the SWT 159's with Voyagers? They seem ideally suited to the route they are on already - easy to work in multiple, comfortable, nicely refurbished. They are just nice units. Nicer than Voyagers. I'd rather sit on a 159 on an XC service than a Voyager if I had the choice..

Click to expand...

Also the Voyagers have less seating in two of them than Three class 129's. The only two advantages that I can think of would be in the future if a) they were bi-model and there were wires for morst of the way out of London (a fair time away and by which point the line to Exeter may well have been electrified anyway and/or at the end of the Voyagers life) and b) if there werer line speed increases which enabled faster journeys including using there tilt (which could be closer, but still not priority).