Great Western IEP order - Are there too many Bi-modes ?

[Rhydgaled]

Bear in mind that we will need bi-mode for the ECML too, and having a large order of GWML bi-modes makes the price more competitive (rather than just ordering ten for the ECML, which would make them more expensive per unit).

Despite the CP5 electrification there will always be places away from the wires that don't justify electrification (Carmarthen, Hereford, Weston...)

True, Carmarthen and Hereford (perhaps Worcester too) don't justify electrification right now, but in my opinion Bristol - Weston S.M. and Swindon - Cheltenham might. Anyway, I'm not sure if there is enough time in CP5 to do more than has been anounced, a bit of a shame they plan to waste time converting 3rd rail to OHLE rather than electrifing Cheltenham and Weston S.M. though.

I would say however that, as things stand, we definiativly DO NOT need bi-mode on the ECML. Things might be different if the ECML open access operations were part of the East Coast franchise and Hull wasn't looking like getting wires early in CP6 (the wires going to Selby looks like they just run out of time/money for the period there), or East Coast's off-wire services were more frequent, but as things stand bi-mode on East Coast is about as DaFT as can be. Sharing locos with thunderbird and sleeper duties, dragging an 9-car IEP electric on the 7 trains per day each way that leave the wires sounds like a plan to me.

Just put class 180s on the London - Paignton and London - Exeter/Taunton trains that are slated for IEP, retain IC125s on the other services beyond Taunton and get some class 22xs converted to bi-mode for Cheltenham, Westbury and Worcester/Hereford.

Looks like there's no quick win with 'beyond the wires' operation then. Well done somebody! :roll:

As I said, the spec (if I remember rightly) seemed to suggest that 5-car bi-modes would not be expected to run in pairs, it would have been 5-car bi-mode plus 5-car electric. IEP might even be more stupid now than it was.

 

[mr_jrt]

*sigh* Because of course a diesel loco designed to quickly couple to the electric IEP would have been so much worse... 9-car electric IEPs + 5-car electric IEPs + diesel locos would have been the ideal situation if it was indeed the IEP we had to end up with. It would let you send a full 9-car train off beyond the wires as a direct service if need be (for the odd service that fills a train but doesn't warrant wires yet), gives the flexibility to have portion working using the smaller units, and of course, either of those portions could happily run beyond the wires using the locos. You could even potentially start services before the wires were even fully up, just as with these foolish bi-modes.

 

[Rhydgaled]

East Coast will have 13 9-car bi-modes.

AhHA! Look at this:

The Hereford/Worcester service probably requires 7 bi-mode sets and the Gloucester service 6 sets, all restricted to single sets because of platform lengths.

6+7 = 13, East Coast don't need bi-mode, so it sounds like they have accidently been given the bi-modes for Cheltenham and Cotswolds services.

Let's see, 13 x 9 = 117 carriages.
180 carriages (36 5-car bi-modes on GW) - 117 = 63 carriages left over
63 coaches form 9 7-car sets

So, give EC's 13 9-car bi-modes to GW and let EC have 13 9-car electrics instead, and you leave GW with:

21 electric 9-car trains (almost covers the electric services, but need more)
13 bi-mode 9-car trains (covers Hereford/Worcester and Cheltenham services)
9 bi-mode 7-car trains (how many IEPs will the PAD - Westbury semi-fast require, given my suggestion that the extensions beyond Taunton should not be IEP operated, would this cover it?)

If those numbers work (and 9-car IEP, if the excessivly long coaches are retained (which by the way would wreck any redeployment potential) might be longer than the Cotswolds and Cheltenham services need anyway) then the question is can you release enough 22x series to eliminate the need for any bi-mode IEPs?

Loco + IEP EMU might work for PAD - Cheltenham anyway (loco on/off at Swindon), of all the planned IEP routes it's only really PAD - Westbury and PAD - Worcester/Hereford that bi-mode should even be considered for.

26m long coaches, if we have them at all, should be restricted to pure-electric units running only on totaly electrified routes in my opinion.

 

[HSTEd]

....

East Coast need bi-modes with all non wired destinations they have: Aberdeen, Inverness, Harrogate, Hull and Lincoln.

Along with the fact that they have no electrified diversionary routes between Doncaster and Stevenage, or between York and Glasgow.

The Great Western has a similar length of diversionary routes but a far less extensive electric network in the first place.

 

[ainsworth74]

6+7 = 13, East Coast don't need bi-mode

So, give EC's 13 9-car bi-modes to GW and let EC have 13 9-car electrics instead

Err and for the services to Aberdeen/Inverness/Hull/Lincoln/Harrogate?

 

[LE Greys]

Err and for the services to Aberdeen/Inverness/Hull/Lincoln/Harrogate?

Get hauled by a bunch of locos with names like COCK O' THE NORTH or FAIR MAID painted apple green.

Or maybe I need to be asleep to dream...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Rhydgaled]

Err and for the services to Aberdeen/Inverness/Hull/Lincoln/Harrogate?

Would be hauled by a diesel loco from the last electrified station, as I said in my post further up the page.

Hull, Harrogate and Lincon would probably require just one diesel loco each, which would be available to boost the number of Thunderbird locos on standby through much of the day. In Scotland, interworking with the Aberdeen and Inverness sleepers would keep the loco requirement fairly low. Basicly, sleeper goes up to Aberdeen/Inverness and the loco comes back to Edinbrugh hauling the East Coast service. In the evening, a diesel loco would haul the East Coast train up to Aberdeen/Inverness and come back with the sleeper. The timetable may need to be altered slightly to allow that, but a handfull of extra diesel locos is surely alot better than 13 or more bi-modes.

You do not need a fleet of bi-modes for East Coast when they only have 7 trains per day each way beyond the wires.

 

[HSTEd]

I make it eight trains per day not under wires: (Hull, Harrogate, Inverness, 3 Aberdeen, 1 Leeds-Aberdeen, Lincoln)

EMU drags on the East Coast on this scale is completely impractical. And also the off-wires sections are sufficiently short that purchasing additional locomotives to work these sections would end up drastically more expensive.

Its the 60t deadweight for 100 miles or 20t of deadweight over 400 miles under electric traction with regenerative braking.

 

[PhilipW]

I think we are getting a bit off topic.

 

[sprinterguy]

There will be no 5 car Electric Orders. So they EMU + EDMU operation is out of the question on that front

There are going to be twelve 5-car electric sets for the ECML, although none for the GWML. From Hitachi's own official press release:

The contract includes the provision into daily service of the following cleaned, serviced and maintained trains:

 Provision of 21x 9-car electric trains and 36x 5-car bi-mode trains for Great Western Main Line into passenger service each weekday (369 vehicles)

 Provision of 12 x 5-car electric trains, 10 x 5-car bi-mode trains and 13 x 9-car bi-mode trains into passenger service each weekday for East Coast Main Line with an option for a further 30 x 9-car electric trains. (227 vehicles with options for a further 270 vehicles)

 

[tbtc]

It simplifies things - instead of having four types of trains (long and short versions of electric and bi-mode) we will have five coach bi-mode and nine coach electric - which should make things a lot easier and encourage portion working at the extremes (you need a nine/ten coach train from London to Reading/ Swindon/ Oxford etc, but generally not all the way to Hereford/ Carmarthen etc).

Have either of you ever travelled on peak Cotswold Line services?

There are several peak trains which are full or near-full HSTs arriving from the west into Oxford in the morning or heading back west in the late afternoon and early evening, never mind the loads between Oxford and London.

Due to short platform lengths between Oxford and Worcester, 2x5-car formations with no corridor connections simply won't work and trying to increase peak frequencies to spread out passengers over more trains would require heroic punctuality, due to the constraints posed by the remaining single-line sections, so how on earth these busy services will be operated is a mystery, unless the bidders go back to DfT and tell them that longer bi-mode formations are needed.

The tender documents do say they will still listen to suggestions about the formations, so it is to be hoped sense prevails and some long sets do indeed appear in the GW fleet.

For all those going on about 'unnecessary' bi-modes, not all diagrams are 'captive' to specific routes - as things stand, HSTs that spend much of the day on the main line also fit in Cotswold/Cheltenham turns to add capacity in the peaks, so making an allowance for such things to continue with new trains is surely sensible.

I did say "generally".

Bear in mind that a seven coach HST = 161m, a five coach IEP = 130. But, with fewer doors/ vestibules, the difference between the two isn't quite as huge. So with ten coach (260m) IEP from London to Oxford there should be enough seats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

True, Carmarthen and Hereford (perhaps Worcester too) don't justify electrification right now, but in my opinion Bristol - Weston S.M. and Swindon - Cheltenham might. Anyway, I'm not sure if there is enough time in CP5 to do more than has been anounced, a bit of a shame they plan to waste time converting 3rd rail to OHLE rather than electrifing Cheltenham and Weston S.M. though

This is it - there's no time to electrify everything before the end of CP5. Most main lines will get electrified one day, but we can't wait until then before we build IEP.

The Third Rail equipment between Basingstoke and Southampton needs renewing - this would have had to be done regardless of other electrification - doing it isn't *instead* of wiring some hourly lines elsewhere.

Sharing locos with thunderbird and sleeper duties, dragging an 9-car IEP electric on the 7 trains per day each way that leave the wires sounds like a plan to me

It sounds good fun for a model railway, but it's too complicated for TOCs (and fairly inefficient to have locos built just to drag a daily return service from Harrogate to Leeds etc).

 

[swt_passenger]

There will be no 5 car Electric Orders. So they EMU + EDMU operation is out of the question on that front

Er... The ECML is getting 12 x 5 car electric according to Hitachi's press release, this is also mentioned in the very recent ECML franchise consultation...

(...and before anyone mentions it this is not for the previously planned Cambridge/Kings Lynn service.)

 

[JamesRowden]

I have wondered if it would be a good idea to run connecting services rather than through services where the route is all below the wires except for a relatively short and low demand section on the end. An example of this is Paddington to Weston-super-Mare (once the GW has been electrified). Is it worth running a bi-mode train all the way from London to Bristol when an electric train could run that section and be given a specifically set connection time with a DMU to continue the journey? This would also mean that the length of the trains for the two sections would be independent and so removing the need for empty seats or detaching parts of a train. Running shorter DMUs might also create a case for increasing the frequency along the line.

 

[PhilipW]

Interesting idea but politically a total non-starter. Justine and Theresa would need a very large pair of ear plugs to avoid the barrage of criticism they would get about dropping through services, not least from the MP from Weston-Super-Mare himself (also a Tory).

Far easier solution would just be to electrify the 20 miles or so to Weston --> no hassle, praise all round. It's bound to happen sometime. Looks a fairly easy stretch to do too.

 

[tbtc]

I have wondered if it would be a good idea to run connecting services rather than through services where the route is all below the wires except for a relatively short and low demand section on the end. An example of this is Paddington to Weston-super-Mare (once the GW has been electrified). Is it worth running a bi-mode train all the way from London to Bristol when an electric train could run that section and be given a specifically set connection time with a DMU to continue the journey? This would also mean that the length of the trains for the two sections would be independent and so removing the need for empty seats or detaching parts of a train. Running shorter DMUs might also create a case for increasing the frequency along the line.

I've argued this in the past, but people are very protective about having a direct London train (even though there's little evidence of any real economic benefit to having one).

If it weren't for all the branches (Carmarthen, Cheltenham, Hereford etc) to have a London service then there'd be little/no justification for bi-mode.

But people seem to want to keep their London services without wanting to pay the price of having bi-mode trains (and, no, fiddling about with Class 67s hauling electric IEPs won't work).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Far easier solution would just be to electrify the 20 miles or so to Weston --> no hassle, praise all round. It's bound to happen sometime. Looks a fairly stretch to do too.

It will happen, but not in the next five years - there's enough electrification plans already committed to.

Since we can't wire everything up immediately, bi-mode is the price we have to pay.

 

[RobShipway]

AhHA! Look at this:

6+7 = 13, East Coast don't need bi-mode, so it sounds like they have accidently been given the bi-modes for Cheltenham and Cotswolds services.

Let's see, 13 x 9 = 117 carriages.
180 carriages (36 5-car bi-modes on GW) - 117 = 63 carriages left over
63 coaches form 9 7-car sets

So, give EC's 13 9-car bi-modes to GW and let EC have 13 9-car electrics instead, and you leave GW with:

21 electric 9-car trains (almost covers the electric services, but need more)
13 bi-mode 9-car trains (covers Hereford/Worcester and Cheltenham services)
9 bi-mode 7-car trains (how many IEPs will the PAD - Westbury semi-fast require, given my suggestion that the extensions beyond Taunton should not be IEP operated, would this cover it?)

If those numbers work (and 9-car IEP, if the excessivly long coaches are retained (which by the way would wreck any redeployment potential) might be longer than the Cotswolds and Cheltenham services need anyway) then the question is can you release enough 22x series to eliminate the need for any bi-mode IEPs?

Loco + IEP EMU might work for PAD - Cheltenham anyway (loco on/off at Swindon), of all the planned IEP routes it's only really PAD - Westbury and PAD - Worcester/Hereford that bi-mode should even be considered for.

26m long coaches, if we have them at all, should be restricted to pure-electric units running only on totaly electrified routes in my opinion.

You may find that the problem with enough stock is answered by not only FGW continuing to use the Class 180's they currently have at the moment, but potentially getting some back from Hull trains, when their Class 180's are replaced by EMU's. Of course, this is just speculation on my part and to me would make sense even though I know some people will say that you would be having 125mph Diesel power under the GWML wires.

 

[jimm]

I did say "generally".

Bear in mind that a seven coach HST = 161m, a five coach IEP = 130. But, with fewer doors/ vestibules, the difference between the two isn't quite as huge. So with ten coach (260m) IEP from London to Oxford there should be enough seats.

You did indeed say generally but the point I was making is that, specifically, there are trains running now west of Oxford carrying 400-500 passengers. Even in a cram-em-in 'commuter' configuration, a five-car IEP is not expected to carry more than 350 people, so something other than a five-car train will be needed, especially if passenger traffic continues to grow.

The only way to overcome that problem during the peak, is to extend platform lengths where possible, and where its not possible, advertise certain stations as front five coaches only.

I don't think the budget will quite stretch to lengthening 12 (and building two more if full redoubling happens) platforms at the main stations on the Cotswold Line. The 'front five coaches only' idea sounds so neat, until it runs up against your average passenger. Some of us remember interminable stops at Oxford when Turbo formations divided in the past and people wanting the set going to Worcester got out of the one that was staying at Oxford or going to Banbury and then boarded the correct portion. Goodbye any journey time savings while people sort out which bit of the train they need to be in. It is not the only way - a longer train with enough seats is a very sensible way to do it, one that has been practised on the line for many years.

people are very protective about having a direct London train (even though there's little evidence of any real economic benefit to having one)

In the case of the Cotswold Line, there is a very clear benefit (to the railway at least), measurable over the past 20 years, ever since the Turbos arrived and most services each day started to run though to and from London, rather than it being change at Oxford for all but two peak Hereford services. Traffic took off and has continued to grow pretty much ever since.

True, Carmarthen and Hereford (perhaps Worcester too) don't justify electrification right now, but in my opinion Bristol - Weston S.M. and Swindon - Cheltenham might.

London-Worcester 16 trains each way per weekday (plus three between Moreton-in-Marsh and London); London-Cheltenham nine through trains per day each way, otherwise change at Swindon. Fairly clear indication of which route FGW thinks is a better earner - but apparently wires to Cheltenham might be justified right now - on what basis?

 

[jopsuk]

The 'front five coaches only' idea sounds so neat, until it runs up against your average passenger. Some of us remember interminable stops at Oxford when Turbo formations divided in the past and people wanting the set going to Worcester got out of the one that was staying at Oxford or going to Banbury and then boarded the correct portion. Goodbye any journey time savings while people sort out which bit of the train they need to be in.

This was really a problem? The fenlanders seem to cope with trains that divide at Cambridge, despite many of them still viewing trains as some sort of evil magic

 

[The Ham]

The 'front five coaches only' idea sounds so neat, until it runs up against your average passenger. Some of us remember interminable stops at Oxford when Turbo formations divided in the past and people wanting the set going to Worcester got out of the one that was staying at Oxford or going to Banbury and then boarded the correct portion. Goodbye any journey time savings while people sort out which bit of the train they need to be in. It is not the only way - a longer train with enough seats is a very sensible way to do it, one that has been practised on the line for many years.

The new trains on the SWML are able to have different displays in the different sections, so can tell you if you are in the bit that stops at the next station. I would have hoped that this feature would be copied on any new stock we get.

 

[jopsuk]

The new trains on the SWML are able to have different displays in the different sections, so can tell you if you are in the bit that stops at the next station. I would have hoped that this feature would be copied on any new stock we get.

The Networkers (on Cambridge services) and Netowkr Turbos don't have inter-unit gangways though, so it does require passengers to board the front section to begin with. This doesn't flummox East Anglians but seems to have been a problem in the Cotswolds?

 

[sprinterguy]

Fairly clear indication of which route FGW thinks is a better earner - but apparently wires to Cheltenham might be justified right now - on what basis?

Principally, it’s a far shorter distance to wire to Cheltenham from the announced GWML wires than it is to Worcester via the Cotswolds. Plus, wiring to Cheltenham would compliment proposals to make some of Crosscountrys’ Voyagers Bi-mode, assist in aspirations to electrify from Barnt Green/Bromsgrove to Bristol, and possibly also contribute to electrification of local services in South Wales (Assuming Gloucester – Severn Tunnel Junction electrification at a future point).

Electrification of the Cotswolds line covers a length of route that pretty much makes for a stand alone project in its own right, and would only really stand to benefit the GW London services. Plus, there would still be a need for Bi-mode to run to Great Malvern and Hereford anyway, unless the project was extensive enough to extend to Hereford.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I've argued this in the past, but people are very protective about having a direct London train (even though there's little evidence of any real economic benefit to having one).

If it weren't for all the branches (Carmarthen, Cheltenham, Hereford etc) to have a London service then there'd be little/no justification for bi-mode.

I don't care much about the London link to Pembroke/Carmarthen anymore, but the capacity of a longer train than ATW can provide (a 5-car 158 might be sufficent, but ATW would need alot more 158s to resource that), and through running to somewhere in southern England (Bristol would be a good replacment for London in my opinion), is needed at times is needed.

fiddling about with Class 67s hauling electric IEPs won't work

Then find (or build) a class of loco that can haul electric IEPs. Diesel locos hauling EMUs can work, maybe not 67s but there will be a way.

Since we can't wire everything up immediately, bi-mode is the price we have to pay.

Or use existing diesel stock (inc. 22xs which could be bi-mode) until the wires are extended. It's a choice of bi-mode IEP until 2050 then EMUs, or IC125s, 180s and 22xs until 2025-2040 then EMUs. I perfer the second option, we get to a fully electric IC network quicker that way.

I know some people will say that you would be having 125mph Diesel power under the GWML wires.

My suggestion post-electrification is the class 180s and IC125s working all PAD services that go beyond Taunton. That means they will only be under-wires for a small percentage of their journey (London - Newbury), the shorter London - Westbury/Worcester services have a more even wired/unwired split and hence are where I would put (class 22x) bi-modes.

 

[HSTEd]

There is no real limit on how fast electrification can occur beyond how fast we are willing to pay for it to be done.

We could have all the Great Western IEP service destinations wired by 2020 if someone was willing to assemble a second HOOP train and supporting team.

 

[BananaRepublic]

...Then find (or build) a class of loco that can haul electric IEPs. Diesel locos hauling EMUs can work, maybe not 67s but there will be a way.

There's no use continuing to dream about any of this. The decision has long been made; there will not be expensive diesel locos routinely dragging EMU's.

It's a choice of bi-mode IEP until 2050 then EMUs, or IC125s, 180s and 22xs until 2025-2040 then EMUs. I perfer the second option, we get to a fully electric IC network quicker that way....

The IEP always intended that the Bi-Mode trains would be converted to all electric EMU's in the fullness of time. They are not a "fixed item" and many of them will lose their diesel generators over the next twenty years, although there are some sections that may never see the wires for a very long time, if ever.

 

[D365]

But what happens with the diesel kit; it seems a bit of a waste if they still have life left. Who knows what will happen though.

 

[Mystic Force]

I would have thought one limit might be trained and qualified personnel to do the work. There are only so many people who can do the work at this point in time and it would take a certain amount of time to get more, plus deciding what number of trained people is sustainable. Also the amount of necessary equipment that manufacturers can or willing to invest in delivering.

That is a factor in timescale of delivery.

 

[anthony263]

There is no real limit on how fast electrification can occur beyond how fast we are willing to pay for it to be done.

We could have all the Great Western IEP service destinations wired by 2020 if someone was willing to assemble a second HOOP train and supporting team.

Havent they decided to order a 2nd HOOP train already which is supposed to be doing the midland mainline and the GW Hoop train then being used on the Cardiff Valleys.

 

[HSTEd]

Havent they decided to order a 2nd HOOP train already which is supposed to be doing the midland mainline and the GW Hoop train then being used on the Cardiff Valleys.

There is no need, the one HOOP train can pretty much do everything itself before it runs out of time (and hits the DDA deadline), since it can manage almost a thousand miles in the time allotted and there is no need for the majority of the Valley lines to use standard equipment in the first place, since it all has ~50mph speed limits.

 

[WatcherZero]

They were originally going to order two HOOP trains because they thought the old wiring train was unusable, however they decided to use it afterall.

 

[jimm]

Principally, it’s a far shorter distance to wire to Cheltenham from the announced GWML wires than it is to Worcester via the Cotswolds. Plus, wiring to Cheltenham would compliment proposals to make some of Crosscountrys’ Voyagers Bi-mode, assist in aspirations to electrify from Barnt Green/Bromsgrove to Bristol, and possibly also contribute to electrification of local services in South Wales (Assuming Gloucester – Severn Tunnel Junction electrification at a future point).

Electrification of the Cotswolds line covers a length of route that pretty much makes for a stand alone project in its own right, and would only really stand to benefit the GW London services. Plus, there would still be a need for Bi-mode to run to Great Malvern and Hereford anyway, unless the project was extensive enough to extend to Hereford.

Which services are the key ones passing through Cheltenham and Gloucester? CrossCountry to/from Bristol and Cardiff. Which services will make the case for electrification in this area? CrossCountry. You are never ever going to wire a complex location like Gloucester for a handful of GW electric trains each day for several years.

The odds are that the XC route will be wired in Control Period 6, in conjunction with Gloucester resignalling, and once there are wires in the vicinity of Worcester (now to be resignalled in 2018), doing the Cotswold Line makes plenty of sense, as, of course, does Swindon-Standish junction and, should the North & West line get on the list too, then going all the way to Malvern and Hereford does as well - journey time cuts with electric traction on Hereford-Birmingham runs should be impressive.

And XC could benefit from the Cotswold Line - could benefit from the extra capacity post-redoubling now actually - in BR days the line was used for weekend diversions of trains between Birmingham and Oxford when the direct route was closed for engineering work.