GWR Class 800

[asylumxl]

DI think bimodes are a complete pigs ear. How much does five diesel power units, fuel and alternators per train weigh

I can't find exact figures for the genset weight or the fuel tank capacities, but it will be a small proportion of the overall weight.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think bimodes are a complete pigs ear. How much does five diesel power units, fuel and alternators per train weigh? It all adds to unnecessary axle loading.

It's 8 tonnes additional weight per "power pack", as MTU likes to call them, and associated paraphernalia (but without fuel): According to the 2013 variant of the train technical spec issued by the DfT, a 5-car bi-mode train (3 engines) will weigh no more than 249.3 tonnes against 233.3 tonnes for the 5-car electric variant, while a 9-car Bi-mode train (5 engines) will weigh no more than 431.8 tonnes against 399.8 tonnes for the 9-car electric variant. A 6.8% weight increase for the 5 car sets and an 8.0% increase for the 9 car sets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Abellio is quite happy to continue with refurbished shortened HSTs in Scotland for at least the next ten years. Why not south of the border?

Because then you still have diesel traction running 400 miles under the wires on the East Coast. Scotrails “new” HSTs will only be under the wires for a short distance of their total journeys (and a very short distance in terms of comparative mileage) probably up until the point when they are totally life expired.

 

[The Ham]

Abellio is quite happy to continue with refurbished shortened HSTs in Scotland for at least the next ten years. Why not south of the border?

It is worth noting that the only way they can do this is by the HST's being freed up by the introduction of new rolling stock. There may be other TOC's who follow suit (especially if it solves the problem of lack of DMU's), but only because there is a viable replacement for the HST's on their existing routes.

 

[jimm]

Do you mean Westbury or do you know something I don't?

I think bimodes are a complete pigs ear. How much does five diesel power units, fuel and alternators per train weigh? It all adds to unnecessary axle loading. Why not continue with 180s or HSTs where off-wire services are required? Abellio is quite happy to continue with refurbished shortened HSTs in Scotland for at least the next ten years. Why not south of the border?

There is every chance that Swindon-Gloucester-Severn Tunnel Junction will be wired as a diversion route for Severn Tunnel and Hereford-Worcester-Birmingham as a growing commuter route. Wiring Gloucester-Worcester would allow pure electric IEPs to run this way to Hereford. The downside is that Oxford-Worcester would have to continue with connecting DMUs.

This would also allow EMUs to operate Maesteg-Cardiff-Cheltenham and Cheltenham-Gloucester-Swindon stoppers as now and Cardiff-Birmingham semi fasts via Worcester and Droitwich.

My apologies, yes, Newbury. But that's really neither here nor there.

Since you seem to also live in fantasy land, I repeat, none of the routes I mentioned is going to be wired in the next two years, or for several years to come, therefore some means of maintaining (increasingly busy) through express services to those places is needed.

If you think that the Cotswold Line is going to be served adequately by making people change to and from Turbos at Oxford then there's just one thing to be said about that - plain stupid.

FYI, there are effectively just two services requiring an Oxford change at present, the weekday all-stations peak stoppers, and even one of those is worked by a 180, so nothing would be "continuing", you would be destroying the service by removing through running to and from Reading and London.

IEP is starting testing right now in Japan, it will be here next year for more testing. It will enter passenger service in 2017. Committed wiring schemes elsewhere will keep Network Rail busy past 2020 at least.

Wiring of anything south-west from Birmingham will not be done until it is decided an XC scheme is viable, not because of South Wales diversions via Gloucester on a few weekends each year and some Cheltenham-Worcester extensions of London trains. And Worcester/Hereford is not exactly top priority either, given the modern dmus in use, unless someone decides wiring is a good idea to trigger a cascade to get rid of older dmus elsewhere. And none of this is in hand right now, is it?

So a bi-mode is a pig's ear? Not according to the French, who have lots of the things and are building an express variant as well. So what's the alternative? Loco-haulage - still no word from dave1987 on the wonders of this option. And if FGW carried on with lots more HSTs, then Abellio probably wouldn't have enough to meet its needs for Scotland. FGW has only five 180s, which are molly-coddled at quite some expense and get the weekends off to boot, so some new trains that can work seven days a week would be nice instead. And Grand Central wants the FGW five so it can get rid of its HSTs...

Re train weights, a Class 180 comes in at 252 tonnes, so basically no difference compared with an 800 bi-mode.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

As the engines in the bimodes meet the regs for emissions, could a diesel only variety be built for lines that electrification could be decades away?

 

[ainsworth74]

Why bother? Surely it's more useful to have bi-mode?

 

[NotATrainspott]

As the engines in the bimodes meet the regs for emissions, could a diesel only variety be built for lines that electrification could be decades away?

There's no point doing that. Even on lines that are not going to be electrified, ever, that bi-mode capability exists is not going to be a bad thing. For example, if bi-mode locomotives for the West Highland Line would mean there would be no diesel noise or emissions in the Glasgow suburbs or more importantly in and around Queen Street High Level station and the tunnel. As stations become more important as high-value public places, and as over-site development is built over the tunnel and cutting gaps the Victorians left for steam to escape, having all trains run on electric power alone is not going to be a bad thing.

 

[macka]

With the GWML being wired soon and the MML after that there will be pretty much zero IC routes without a significant amount of wires, so bimodes would still be beneficial. We also will have a surplus of 125mph DMUs, so there's no point in adding any more.

 

[DownSouth]

Why bother? Surely it's more useful to have bi-mode?

For sure.

Five tonnes of "extra" electric equipment would account for about a mere rounding error on the train's total mass (equivalent to roughly 60 adult passengers with luggage, and we all know passenger numbers fluctuate by hundreds) while allowing significantly more economical running when on electrified track. Dragging it around when it's not in use on non-electrified track is worth it.

The diesel equipment, on the other hand, is not worth dragging around if it forces significant compromises to the design and has a real weight penalty. A nation as evenly populated as the UK has no business with running long distance higher speed trains on large swathes of non-electrified track other than as a temporary bodge job pending the completion of electrification programs.
The ordering of bi-mode units sends a loud and clear signal that the UK rail authorities are not serious about electrification. If they were, they would have ordered straight EMUs and genset locomotives specified for push-pull working (maybe even with the capability to supply the EMU's power bus for distributed traction) to allow short extensions of long-distance services beyond the end of the wires.

 

[JamesRowden]

The ordering of bi-mode units sends a loud and clear signal that the UK rail authorities are not serious about electrification. If they were, they would have ordered straight EMUs and genset locomotives specified for push-pull working (maybe even with the capability to supply the EMU's power bus for distributed traction) to allow short extensions of long-distance services beyond the end of the wires.

If the 'UK rail authorities' were 'not serious about electrification' the GWML electrification scheme would not exist and the original order for diesel IEP trains would not have been cancelled.

 

[deltic08]

It's 8 tonnes additional weight per "power pack", as MTU likes to call them, and associated paraphernalia (but without fuel): According to the 2013 variant of the train technical spec issued by the DfT, a 5-car bi-mode train (3 engines) will weigh no more than 249.3 tonnes against 233.3 tonnes for the 5-car electric variant, while a 9-car Bi-mode train (5 engines) will weigh no more than 431.8 tonnes against 399.8 tonnes for the 9-car electric variant. A 6.8% weight increase for the 5 car sets and an 8.0% increase for the 9 car sets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because then you still have diesel traction running 400 miles under the wires on the East Coast. Scotrails “new” HSTs will only be under the wires for a short distance of their total journeys (and a very short distance in terms of comparative mileage) probably up until the point when they are totally life expired.

I was thinking more of the GWML with short formation HSTs to Hereford, Gloucester etc not being connected just yet. We will have to wait and see how inconvenient these IEP floors are before accepting bimodes over pure electrics.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The ordering of bi-mode units sends a loud and clear signal that the UK rail authorities are not serious about electrification. If they were, they would have ordered straight EMUs and genset locomotives specified for push-pull working (maybe even with the capability to supply the EMU's power bus for distributed traction) to allow short extensions of long-distance services beyond the end of the wires.

There is a big difference between being serious about electrification and currently having the funds to wire up every single main line in the UK.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was thinking more of the GWML with short formation HSTs to Hereford, Gloucester etc not being connected just yet. We will have to wait and see how inconvenient these IEP floors are before accepting bimodes over pure electrics.

How do you define "short formation HST's"?

 

[deltic08]

My apologies, yes, Newbury. But that's really neither here nor there.

Since you seem to also live in fantasy land, I repeat, none of the routes I mentioned is going to be wired in the next two years, or for several years to come, therefore some means of maintaining (increasingly busy) through express services to those places is needed.

If you think that the Cotswold Line is going to be served adequately by making people change to and from Turbos at Oxford then there's just one thing to be said about that - plain stupid.

FYI, there are effectively just two services requiring an Oxford change at present, the weekday all-stations peak stoppers, and even one of those is worked by a 180, so nothing would be "continuing", you would be destroying the service by removing through running to and from Reading and London.

IEP is starting testing right now in Japan, it will be here next year for more testing. It will enter passenger service in 2017. Committed wiring schemes elsewhere will keep Network Rail busy past 2020 at least.

Wiring of anything south-west from Birmingham will not be done until it is decided an XC scheme is viable, not because of South Wales diversions via Gloucester on a few weekends each year and some Cheltenham-Worcester extensions of London trains. And Worcester/Hereford is not exactly top priority either, given the modern dmus in use, unless someone decides wiring is a good idea to trigger a cascade to get rid of older dmus elsewhere. And none of this is in hand right now, is it?

So a bi-mode is a pig's ear? Not according to the French, who have lots of the things and are building an express variant as well. So what's the alternative? Loco-haulage - still no word from dave1987 on the wonders of this option. And if FGW carried on with lots more HSTs, then Abellio probably wouldn't have enough to meet its needs for Scotland. FGW has only five 180s, which are molly-coddled at quite some expense and get the weekends off to boot, so some new trains that can work seven days a week would be nice instead. And Grand Central wants the FGW five so it can get rid of its HSTs...

Re train weights, a Class 180 comes in at 252 tonnes, so basically no difference compared with an 800 bi-mode.

No, I do not live in fantasy land as you state and my suggestion was not stupid just because you disagreed with my suggestion. Have you not heard of lateral thinking? All options should be considered. Just because bimodes have been selected by the DfT as a solution to a problem does not mean that it is the only or most appropriate solution.

The possibility of electrifying Swindon-Gloucester-Severn Tunnel Junction within ten years as a GWML follow-on is a real possibility. The Gloucester-Chepstow line runs through my family's farm and when workmen in orange were questioned by my sister earlier this year on her access road bridge she was told they were surveying bridges for electrification.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

there is a big difference between being serious about electrification and currently having the funds to wire up every single main line in the uk.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


how do you define "short formation hst's"?

2+5/6/7

 

[Kite159]

Think of the bi-modes as stop gap measures, as soon as more parts of the GWML are wired up, more pure electrics will probably be ordered to release the bi-modes elsewhere

 

[ainsworth74]

2+5/6/7

Those will be fun between Paddington - Reading - Oxford...

 

[RichmondCommu]

2+5/6/7

Are you suggesting that a five coach train will be sufficient for services running into London? Bearing in mind that you wouldn't be able to attach two trains during the Peak. In that case surely you would not be making the most of your resources?

 

[samuelmorris]

Depends on the diagram - their 180s are only 5 car don't forget...

 

[jimm]

No, I do not live in fantasy land as you state and my suggestion was not stupid just because you disagreed with my suggestion. Have you not heard of lateral thinking? All options should be considered. Just because bimodes have been selected by the DfT as a solution to a problem does not mean that it is the only or most appropriate solution.

The possibility of electrifying Swindon-Gloucester-Severn Tunnel Junction within ten years as a GWML follow-on is a real possibility. The Gloucester-Chepstow line runs through my family's farm and when workmen in orange were questioned by my sister earlier this year on her access road bridge she was told they were surveying bridges for electrification.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


2+5/6/7

Yes, you do live in a fantasy land - wiring of GW routes above and beyond those currently committed is not going to happen until we are well into the 2020s - your "within 10 years" is quite a long time, if you stop to think about it.

There may be wires on GW bi-mode IEP routes within 10 years, but in the meantime the services need to keep running - that's all there is to it, so you can't build an all-electric IEP fleet, unless you also buy some diesel locos to drag them around off the wires until more electrification happens. And that option has already been discarded in favour of IEP bi-modes.

Any suggestion that Cotswold Line passengers should have to change at Oxford is most certainly plain stupid - the massive growth in traffic over the past 20-odd years has been built on the back of almost all services running through to and from London.

If you don't know the route and its traffic patterns - and I'm guessing you don't, being up in Ripon - then take it from someone who actually lives on the route and uses it to get to work that if you did go back to a pre-1993 situation, lots of people would just vote with their cars and drive off to the Chiltern Line. That's not lateral thinking, that's fact.

Your short HSTs would be such fun on heavily-loaded peak Cotswold Line and Cheltenham services... they are busy west of Oxford and Swindon, not just east of those places.

As for the floors in IEPs, unless we have all suddenly become giants - and the average height of British men is about 5ft 10in and women about 5ft 3in, which would suggest not - then it's a fair bet most people will:
a. not bash their heads
b. manage to cope with a short slope in a train floor - I have travelled on European trains with a mix of low-floor and high-floor sections and got from one level to the other, even managing to get up steps to seats above the bogies on some types, without suffering lifelong trauma... and frankly, the step up into a Class 180 is so high from some platforms that a lower door level and a bit of a slope up into the passenger saloon between the toilet and luggage rack would have been no bad thing.

 

[po8crg]

I expect there to be more follow-on orders for electric-only IEPs as electrification spreads out. The Bi-modes can then be used to replace remaining HSTs and 220s/221s/222s and 180s.

I do think there's a case for a cheaper 125 mph EMU for MML and to replace the Class 90/Mark 3s on GEML. I imagine MML will be getting the IC225s as it's initial electric trains.

 

[The Ham]

I imagine MML will be getting the IC225s as it's initial electric trains.

Especially now that the IC225's will be having a "complete refurbishment" early on in the new ICEC franchise. Potentially making them fairly attractive trains to TOC's to lease.

 

[deltic08]

Yes, you do live in a fantasy land - wiring of GW routes above and beyond those currently committed is not going to happen until we are well into the 2020s - your "within 10 years" is quite a long time, if you stop to think about it.

There may be wires on GW bi-mode IEP routes within 10 years, but in the meantime the services need to keep running - that's all there is to it, so you can't build an all-electric IEP fleet, unless you also buy some diesel locos to drag them around off the wires until more electrification happens. And that option has already been discarded in favour of IEP bi-modes.

Any suggestion that Cotswold Line passengers should have to change at Oxford is most certainly plain stupid - the massive growth in traffic over the past 20-odd years has been built on the back of almost all services running through to and from London.

If you don't know the route and its traffic patterns - and I'm guessing you don't, being up in Ripon - then take it from someone who actually lives on the route and uses it to get to work that if you did go back to a pre-1993 situation, lots of people would just vote with their cars and drive off to the Chiltern Line. That's not lateral thinking, that's fact.

Your short HSTs would be such fun on heavily-loaded peak Cotswold Line and Cheltenham services... they are busy west of Oxford and Swindon, not just east of those places.

As for the floors in IEPs, unless we have all suddenly become giants - and the average height of British men is about 5ft 10in and women about 5ft 3in, which would suggest not - then it's a fair bet most people will:
a. not bash their heads
b. manage to cope with a short slope in a train floor - I have travelled on European trains with a mix of low-floor and high-floor sections and got from one level to the other, even managing to get up steps to seats above the bogies on some types, without suffering lifelong trauma... and frankly, the step up into a Class 180 is so high from some platforms that a lower door level and a bit of a slope up into the passenger saloon between the toilet and luggage rack would have been no bad thing.

I suggest you calm down and pull your neck in before you do damage to yourself. It is just an option as personally I am not in favour of dragging around 50 tons of additional weight on a train weighing only 200 tons.

You obviously didn't carefully read my post where I said my family farm between Gloucester and Chepstow. I am very familiar with the route to Paddington. 2+5/6/7 is adequate for all stations between Cheltenham and Swindon and London as it is now with 180s. It may be insufficient for Reading-Paddington passengers but I was thinking of not stopping at Didcot and Reading, as it was in steam days, to stay ahead of IEPs. Changing at Swindon would provide a connection.

I may be "stupid" at my age but I can add 10 years onto 2014/5 thank you very much. HSTs should be good for that length of time with a bit of fettling as Chiltern have done and Abellio plan to do until further electrification of the Cotswold routes.

 

[Chris125]

I suggest you calm down and pull your neck in before you do damage to yourself. It is just an option as personally I am not in favour of dragging around 50 tons of additional weight on a train weighing only 200 tons.

Is it ideal? No. Does it make more sense than the alternatives? In my opinion yes, by a country mile. I can see uses for bi-mode units for a long time to come, and if not they can have the extra weight removed.

Chris

 

[RobShipway]

You also need to remember as I think was pointed out earlier in this thread, that a 5 car IEP train can take as many passengers as an 8 Car HST, as each car within the 5 car IEP set is longer than a MK3 coach.

On the basis of the above, there should be enough rooms for passengers at Cheltenham, Swindon and Reading should the train stop at all three stations.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Depends on the diagram - their 180s are only 5 car don't forget...

Yes but I'm assuming here that two class 180's can run together if necessary.

 

[RobShipway]

Yes but I'm assuming here that two class 180's can run together if necessary.

I know previously FGW has run 2 Class 180's in multiple before they decided to have them go off lease.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You obviously didn't carefully read my post where I said my family farm between Gloucester and Chepstow. I am very familiar with the route to Paddington. 2+5/6/7 is adequate for all stations between Cheltenham and Swindon and London as it is now with 180s. It may be insufficient for Reading-Paddington passengers but I was thinking of not stopping at Didcot and Reading, as it was in steam days, to stay ahead of IEPs. Changing at Swindon would provide a connection.

Given that Reading is one of the most important stations on the GWML it would be crazy to cut down on the number of services stopping there simply to ensure that the HST's can soldier on for a few more years.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is there any paths that could be used for some local stoppers between Reading and Paddington (DMU or EMU post-electrification)?

 

[sprinterguy]

I suggest you calm down and pull your neck in before you do damage to yourself. It is just an option as personally I am not in favour of dragging around 50 tons of additional weight on a train weighing only 200 tons.

Eh? As I have outlined, it's 16 tonnes of additional weight on a train that would otherwise weigh 233 tonnes.

I seriously doubt that the weight of fuel is going to account for an additional 34 tonnes.

Note also that a 9-car Bi-mode IEP train will actually weigh less than one of Virgin's 9-car Pendolinos: Not bad going considering that the IEP is using 26 metre coaches.

 

[asylumxl]

I seriously doubt that the weight of fuel is going to account for an additional 34 tonnes. .

Me too. That'd be 40,000 litres of diesel. That train would have some range!

 

[The Ham]

Me too. That'd be 40,000 litres of diesel. That train would have some range!

That would likely be several thousand miles of diesel running, meaning that they would not need filling up very often.

Especially as for most of the time on any given route it will be using electric traction.