FGW HST Lengthening

[AlanFry1]

Which current stock are you referring to?

Proposing moving the GA Mk3 fleet should be considered out of the question without finding a suitable replacement for it. You mention timescales for IEP as a problem, but what are your timescales for the replacement of the GA fleet, starting now - and what's the business case for that anyway?

If there were any usable spare HST vehicles, why would they be rebuilding buffet cars at vast expense? Why would they be breaking up an HST set to augment additional 2+7 sets up to 2+8?

GA would order 15+ 10-car Class 379 (specified for Intercity use) for the London-Norwich route, that would free up the Mark 3 fleet

Also, the Mark 3 fleet GA use is (with the exception of the Mark 3 fleet used by Chiltern Railways) the only major use of the Mark 3 fleet on loco-hauled services. Hence it would be a good idea to move them to HST sets

I like the GA Class 90/Mark 3 sets on the London-Norwich route, but I feel it a better use of existing Mark 3 stock to move it to the FGW HST sets

 

[LE Greys]

GA would order 15+ 10-car Class 379 (specified for Intercity use) for the London-Norwich route, that would free up the Mark 3 fleet

Also, the Mark 3 fleet GA use is (with the exception of the Mark 3 fleet used by Chiltern Railways) the only major use of the Mark 3 fleet on loco-hauled services. Hence it would be a good idea to move them to HST sets

I like the GA Class 90/Mark 3 sets on the London-Norwich route, but I feel it a better use of existing Mark 3 stock to move it to the FGW HST sets

Unitisation on London-Norwich isn't going to be popular, certainly not with something like 379s. Something more along the 444 line possibly (provided they make it more comfortable inside). The ideal would be pantographs on the 442s, or possibly the 460s (not that they are all that comfortable) but both are clearly impossible. Whatever replaces the MkIIIs there needs to have buffets at least.

 

[ainsworth74]

GA would order 15+ 10-car Class 379 (specified for Intercity use) for the London-Norwich route, that would free up the Mark 3 fleet

And why would this order be any quicker than IEP? Also don't forget that you need to put this out to an open tender for any company to bid on so it isn't a simple as just ringing up Bombardier and telling them to get on with it. Even if the tender were issued tomorrow (which would be impossible as it takes a while to draw these things up) I'd be surprised if the trains were in service much before 2014. Also why spend money on retrofitting the LHCS Mk3s to be compatible with HST ETS when in a couple of years time IEP will arrive and displace loads of HST Mk3s to increase the set size. You've also yet to answer Flamingos point about the decrease in capability across the entire FGW HSS network just to provide a benefit to the short run between London and Reading. Finally you're also missing a trick by specifying them as 10-car units rather than 5-car units and I also agree with LE Greys that 444s would be far more appropriate for the GEML than 379s.

 

[AlanFry1]

Unitisation on London-Norwich isn't going to be popular, certainly not with something like 379s. Something more along the 444 line possibly (provided they make it more comfortable inside). The ideal would be pantographs on the 442s, or possibly the 460s (not that they are all that comfortable) but both are clearly impossible. Whatever replaces the MkIIIs there needs to have buffets at least.

The 379s that would have replaced the Mark 3 under my plan would have buffets and its interior would more designed for Intercity services (i.e. more comfortable), but remember both 379 and Mark 3 have a 2+2 (Standard Class) and 2+1 (First Class) seating layout

 

[ainsworth74]

And the answers to my points are?

 

[AlanFry1]

And why would this order be any quicker than IEP? Also don't forget that you need to put this out to an open tender for any company to bid on so it isn't a simple as just ringing up Bombardier and telling them to get on with it. Even if the tender were issued tomorrow (which would be impossible as it takes a while to draw these things up) I'd be surprised if the trains were in service much before 2014. Also why spend money on retrofitting the LHCS Mk3s to be compatible with HST ETS when in a couple of years time IEP will arrive and displace loads of HST Mk3s to increase the set size. You've also yet to answer Flamingos point about the decrease in capability across the entire FGW HSS network just to provide a benefit to the short run between London and Reading. Finally you're also missing a trick by specifying them as 10-car units rather than 5-car units and I also agree with LE Greys that 444s would be far more appropriate for the GEML than 379s.

Yes, but the IEP has been delayed by Governments reviewing the project, this is only a short term solution, why do you think 444 would be better than a Intercity version of the 379, I did them as 10 car units do that they are the same length as the current Class 90/Mark 3 set

Will the IEP project have 12 car versions?

 

[LE Greys]

Yes, but the IEP has been delayed by Governments reviewing the project, this is only a short term solution, why do you think 444 would be better than a Intercity version of the 379, I did them as 10 car units do that they are the same length as the current Class 90/Mark 3 set

Will the IEP project have 12 car versions?

In my case, doors at the ends of coaches, 75 ft bodies and buffets, although I'd prefer better seats and interiors, plus bigger fans to generate some air movement inside.

 

[AlanFry1]

In my case, doors at the ends of coaches, 75 ft bodies and buffets, although I'd prefer better seats and interiors, plus bigger fans to generate some air movement inside.

Maybe Bombardier could create a version of the class 379, with those improvements (called Class 381)

Unless Siemens build the 444 in the UK

 

[swt_passenger]

GA would order 15+ 10-car Class 379 (specified for Intercity use) for the London-Norwich route, that would free up the Mark 3 fleet

Why though? It is much easier to leave the current stock on the GA until it is fully life expired, then replace it with suitable EMU stock at the appropriate time. Your proposal is the typical short termism driven mainly by a personal preference to line up all the Mk3 like stock in a single area, for no other reason than it looking a bit neater.

The Mk3 stock on the GA route is little more than an accident anyway - it is no more of an 'intercity' route than Waterloo to Bournemouth, which is why the relevant RUS mentions using a 444 style 5 x 23m replacement, running in multiple in the peaks.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes, but the IEP has been delayed by Governments reviewing the project, this is only a short term solution, why do you think 444 would be better than a Intercity version of the 379, I did them as 10 car units do that they are the same length as the current Class 90/Mark 3 set

Perhaps it has (and I note that the DfT still expect an order to be placed sometime this year) but that doesn't change the fact that within the next 5/6 years a bunch of HSTs are going to be spare and then you will have as many Mk3s to play with as you want. Also you still haven't addressed the fact that you will be degrading the entire GW HSS network for the benefit of the short run between Paddington and Reading this is a serious issue.

The reason I would have gone for 5-car units is that it increase flexibility. You could then run 5-car units off peak and 10-car units during the peak rather than being stuck running 10-car units all day no matter what the demand. Also 444s make more sense as they have a superior door layout, a superior interior design (they were built for long distance services) and already have features such as a buffet counter. However this to my mind is a long term goal once the 90+Mk3 sets are fully life expired in about 5/6 years time.

Will the IEP project have 12 car versions?

None are planned to be ordered in that length but as far as I'm aware Agility trains are happy building anything from 5-car to 12-car version.

Unless Siemens build the 444 in the UK

Or we could buy the best stock for the job, there's a radical thought.

 

[AlanFry1]

Why though? It is much easier to leave the current stock on the GA until it is fully life expired, then replace it with suitable EMU stock at the appropriate time. Your proposal is the typical short termism driven mainly by a personal preference to line up all the Mk3 like stock in a single area, for no other reason than it looking a bit neater.

The Mk3 stock on the GA route is little more than an accident anyway - it is no more of an 'intercity' route than Waterloo to Bournemouth, which is why the relevant RUS mentions using a 444 style 5 x 23m replacement, running in multiple in the peaks.

You are right this is only a short term plan, i would not mind if the 444 (overhead power version, maybe called Class 381) used on the London-Norwich route, it is a great train, but it should be built in the UK

 

[LE Greys]

Why though? It is much easier to leave the current stock on the GA until it is fully life expired, then replace it with suitable EMU stock at the appropriate time. Your proposal is the typical short termism driven mainly by a personal preference to line up all the Mk3 like stock in a single area, for no other reason than it looking a bit neater.

The Mk3 stock on the GA route is little more than an accident anyway - it is no more of an 'intercity' route than Waterloo to Bournemouth, which is why the relevant RUS mentions using a 444 style 5 x 23m replacement, running in multiple in the peaks.

Waterloo to Bournemouth is an Intercity route. It's no more than an historical accident that the MkIII-based stock there ended up painted in NSE stripes, mainly because Chris Green insisted on it. It then got lumped in with of SWT as a suburban route, and the rest is history.

 

[Nym]

...but it should be built in the UK

Why??

Any ideas on the actual logistics of vehicle assembly have we?

 

[AlanFry1]

Perhaps it has (and I note that the DfT still expect an order to be placed sometime this year) but that doesn't change the fact that within the next 5/6 years a bunch of HSTs are going to be spare and then you will have as many Mk3s to play with as you want. Also you still haven't addressed the fact that you will be degrading the entire GW HSS network for the benefit of the short run between Paddington and Reading this is a serious issue.

The reason I would have gone for 5-car units is that it increase flexibility. You could then run 5-car units off peak and 10-car units during the peak rather than being stuck running 10-car units all day no matter what the demand. Also 444s make more sense as they have a superior door layout, a superior interior design (they were built for long distance services) and already have features such as a buffet counter. However this to my mind is a long term goal once the 90+Mk3 sets are fully life expired in about 5/6 years time.



None are planned to be ordered in that length but as far as I'm aware Agility trains are happy building anything from 5-car to 12-car version.



Or we could buy the best stock for the job, there's a radical thought.

How am I degrading the FGW HSS network, it just that the trains are longer

As for a long term plan, I would be looking at a 12-car IEPs and other lengths depending on the route, but they would be all EMU's

My preference for the London-Norwich route would be the Class 91/Mark 4, like the HST fleet both would be replaced by 10 to 12 car IEP EMU sets on the EC (along with the HST and 222s run by FHT and GC, taken over by EC or not)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Waterloo to Bournemouth is an Intercity route. It's no more than an historical accident that the MkIII-based stock there ended up painted in NSE stripes, mainly because Chris Green insisted on it. It then got lumped in with of SWT as a suburban route, and the rest is history.

Are you suggesting that the Waterloo to Exeter/Weymouth/Bristol/Portsmouth should be considered "Intercity" routes

 

[AndyLandy]

Why are buffets useless?

As far as I was aware, a load of old Mk3 stock came off-lease when CrossCountry and West Coast stopped running loco-hauled services. Some TF and TSO vehicles were re-deployed elsewhere to lengthen existing services, but the buffet cars were surplus (Most Mk3 services already had one) so many sat in storage. I'm sure Porterbrook even listed a Mk3 buffet car for sale on eBay once.

And all that to increase the number of seats between London and Reading (a 25-30 minute journey) in the morning and evening peaks (which is where and when 90% of the seating capacity is required).

At the risk of sounding controversial, what about some kind of "additional services" that serve London and Reading in the peak? I guess pathing them is the difficult bit, but it still makes far more sense than adding extra vehicles to an HST set that will run empty west of Reading!

 

[ainsworth74]

How am I degrading the FGW HSS network, it just that the trains are longer

From the keyboard of a FGW guard that works the services day in day out:

Longer trains would also have increased journey times, it would remove any recovery times between stations (due to the decreased acceleration rates with all the extra weight), and it would mean that SDO would have to be used at a much greater number of stations, further increasing delays.

And all that to increase the number of seats between London and Reading (a 25-30 minute journey) in the morning and evening peaks (which is where and when 90% of the seating capacity is required).

And:

Personally (and don't forget, I work these trains day in day out), I think we don't need an increase in capacity of anything like 25% across the fleet, and the consequences of that will have a greater negative impact on a larger number of passengers than the people who stand between London and Reading (a large number of whom chose to stand despite plenty of seats being available).

Certain services do need looking at, and I think that FGW could be a little more imaginative in it's approach to those individual services, but a shotgun approach is not required.

So moving on:

My preference for the London-Norwich route would be the Class 91/Mark 4, like the HST fleet both would be replaced by 10 to 12 car IEP EMU sets on the EC (along with the HST and 222s run by FHT and GC, taken over by EC or not)

In the long term sure that seems reasonable but by long term we're talking 2020s. Also for the record HT and GC run 180s (and GC run HSTs) HT haven't used 222s for some years now and GC have never used them.

 

[swt_passenger]

At the risk of sounding controversial, what about some kind of "additional services" that serve London and Reading in the peak? I guess pathing them is the difficult bit, but it still makes far more sense than adding extra vehicles to an HST set that will run empty west of Reading!

That isn't controversial though - it is exactly what I mentioned a few posts ago, because it is proposed in both the London and SE RUS, and the GWML RUS.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Waterloo to Bournemouth is an Intercity route.

It isn't today, on 12 Mar 2012.

Your time machine must be broken.

 

[LE Greys]

That isn't controversial though - it is exactly what I mentioned a few posts ago, because it is proposed in both the London and SE RUS, and the GWML RUS.

Now that makes more sense. Here is where something like Airtrack would have helped, since that would reduce the conflict with HEX. Look like we'll have to wait to see if there is an HS2 extension to Heathrow that would reduce the number HEX paths going there, freeing them up for a Reading shuttle, probably calling at Slough and Maidenhead.

The other problem with extending HSTs is that, where extra capacity is needed most away from Reading (summer services to Devon and Cornwall) happens to be where the stiffest gradients are (South Devon). Nice dilemma for someone there.

 

[aylesbury]

Last week on Oxford local tv news they did an item on the conversions being carried out on the buffets ,quite a reasonable peice of reporting for a change as they can be rather biased against rail.

 

[Nym]

Not to sound like a broken record or anything, but the LHCS design I have previously discribed helps on pretty much all of these problems, as does kicking Heathrow Express off the GWML in it's current form, the fast lines should not have anything stopping on them before Reading, simple as!

Pointing Airport Junction in both directions would also be rather helpful, but very expensive, but the Rail access into Heathrow needs some drastic improvment. And if Airtrack where completed, and intergrated with Crossrail, then it can open up a wealth of new yourney opertunities in the South West for services via Heathrow.

Since we have 24tph to play with on Crossrail, 4tph can go to Maidenhead, 4tph to Reading (that then run limited stop to OOC) 4tph through T5 and onwards to Guildford or Reading 2tph Each, 4tph to T4 (Current Heathrow Connect), and 8tph to somewhere else, proberbly some services up the WCML. The other services on Airtrack being 2tph from Waterloo via Clapham Junction and 2tph from Stratford via Richmond and the NLL.

 

[AlanFry1]

From the keyboard of a FGW guard that works the services day in day out:



And:



So moving on:



In the long term sure that seems reasonable but by long term we're talking 2020s. Also for the record HT and GC run 180s (and GC run HSTs) HT haven't used 222s for some years now and GC have never used them.

sorry I meant 180s, they are all with East Midlands now, also the engine on the 43s will be uprated

 

[Flamingo]

At the risk of sounding controversial, what about some kind of "additional services" that serve London and Reading in the peak? I guess pathing them is the difficult bit, but it still makes far more sense than adding extra vehicles to an HST set that will run empty west of Reading!

Line capacity is pretty much at 100% at the moment, I believe. Maybe Crossrail will improve it.

 

[AlanFry1]

Line capacity is pretty much at 100% at the moment, I believe. Maybe Crossrail will improve it.

Hence it is a good idea adding capcity, not by extra services, but longer trains

 

[ainsworth74]

Hence it is a good idea adding capcity, not by extra services, but longer trains

Apart from, you know, those issues that Flamingo mentioned and you have yet to seemingly acknowledge...

 

[455driver]

, also the engine on the 43s will be uprated

The engines arent the problem, its the main alternator and traction motors, are you going to change these as well? Its getting more expensive by the minute!

 

[AlanFry1]

The engines arent the problem, its the main alternator and traction motors, are you going to change these as well? Its getting more expensive by the minute!

If needed, but remember EC HSTS are in 9-car sets

 

[Flamingo]

Hence it is a good idea adding capcity, not by extra services, but longer trains

If the line ended at Reading I would agree with you. But there is a great big world to the west of Reading!

 

[swt_passenger]

Line capacity is pretty much at 100% at the moment, I believe. Maybe Crossrail will improve it.

Basically, Crossrail provides for the additional platform capacity needed at Paddington, and when combined with the Reading remodelling that is the explanation for the increase in overall fast line paths/capacity - it is all explained in Chapter 9 of the GWML RUS. IEP then provides more 'seats per train' as an additional factor.

I'd have thought that would be regular bedtime reading for FGW staff?

 

[Flamingo]

Basically, Crossrail provides for the additional platform capacity needed at Paddington, and when combined with the Reading remodelling that is the explanation for the increase in overall fast line paths/capacity - it is all explained in Chapter 9 of the GWML RUS. IEP then provides more 'seats per train' as an additional factor.

I'd have thought that would be regular bedtime reading for FGW staff?

Naw, even nerds find that kind of stuff boring!

Anyway, we just work our diagrams, nobody looks for our opinion!

 

[AlanFry1]

If the line ended at Reading I would agree with you. But there is a great big world to the west of Reading!

ending at Reading or not, we need to add capacity
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Basically, Crossrail provides for the additional platform capacity needed at Paddington, and when combined with the Reading remodelling that is the explanation for the increase in overall fast line paths/capacity - it is all explained in Chapter 9 of the GWML RUS. IEP then provides more 'seats per train' as an additional factor.

I'd have thought that would be regular bedtime reading for FGW staff?

When the IEP will come and will it be 12 car EMU is an important factor