GWR West Fleet IEP Cascade Update

[43074]

IC125s on stoppers, 5-car DMUs on IC routes and totally inappropriate 165s with 2+3 seating, no UEGs and 1/3, 2/3 doors on the franchise's premier regional express service :roll::cry::roll: (the latest Modern Railways states that all 166s will now stay at Reading depot, but doesn't mention what would run Cardiff-Portsmouth, so assume it is still planned to be Turbos). What a mess. Cardiff-Portsmouth needs 5-car end-door units, INTERCITY routes mostly need 7-9 coaches and Networker Turbos should NEVER BE USED ON REGIONAL EXPRESS SERVICES.

That's the situation that would apply in an ideal world, this isn't an ideal world as GWML electrification is running a good few years behind schedule. The 125s are only a stop-gap before 158s are cascaded from Cardiff to Portsmouth by sufficient numbers of Turbos. I agree, it's not ideal but it's what GWR have agreed with the DfT. And the worst stock on the franchise, the 143s and 153s are being replaced by refurbished 150/2s and 16x units, which is an improvement.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It is almost certainly true that the AT300 series units will accelerate faster, at least under the wires, than IC125s. But this was, apparently, not considered too great a problem from August 2011 (when I'm sure Modern Railways stated that IC125s would remain on the PAD-Plymouth/Penzance services, with IEP on the Oxford/Bristol/Swansea routes) to shortly before the new franchise agreement which brought the branding change to GWR. Even when that deal was introduced, there were two Service Level Commitment options for post-2018, the first of which assumed continued operation of IC125s on the PAD-PLY/PNZ route. I seem to recall reading on one forum or other that it had been decided the power-door mrk3s were unaffordable and hence the order for class 802s.

This is exactly my point, rather than reducing train lengths to 5-car class 802 on many PAD-PLY/PNZ services, I feel the 2+8 IC125s should be retained on the PAD-PLY/PNZ route. That August 2011 Modern Railways also stated that stakeholders did not want the underfloor-engined class 222 units for such a long route, so it makes more sense to me to use the 5-car 800s and/or 802s on regional express services where fewer passengers will be going long distances and where 5 coaches is an increase in capacity, rather than a reduction as it would be on GW INTERCITY routes.

What I've read online (or perhaps in Modern Railways) is that ALL mark 3s are not built to exact dimensions and every one is slightly different (this was discovered while fitting the Chiltern ones with power-doors). That meant Chiltern-style mods were very time consuming and expensive, so FirstGWR decided they would have to order the 802s. However, then it turned out ScotRail had thought of a cheaper way of fitting the plug-doors, so presumably all future mrk3 plug-door convertions, whether of IC125 trailers or LHCS, will use the new technique and not be like Chiltern's. I could be wrong of course because I don't work in the rail industry.

GW IEP is 18x 9-car sets and 32x 5-car sets diagrammed each day if I recall correctly. That's 322 diagrammed vehicles. That's diagrams, to resource that Agility Trains West will I think have a fleet of 21x 9-car and 36x 5-car, or 369 vehicles. That doesn't include the Plymouth/Penzance class 802 order, and on that basis I think it is an overall increase in capacity, HOWEVER, much of the increase seems to be thanks to the planned doubling of frequency between London and Bristol Temple Meads to 4tph, other routes (at least based on the DfT's draft diagrams, which are apparently inoperable in some cases) such as London-Swansea would see less capacity than today. According to Wikipedia, the class 802 fleet for GW is 173 vehicles, a total of 542 new vehicles across the Great Western fleet, but keep in mind that the class 802s are NOT IEP units.

There is some 110mph running on the Bristol-Taunton route I believe.

IC125s on stoppers, 5-car DMUs on IC routes and totally inappropriate 165s with 2+3 seating, no UEGs and 1/3, 2/3 doors on the franchise's premier regional express service :roll::cry::roll: (the latest Modern Railways states that all 166s will now stay at Reading depot, but doesn't mention what would run Cardiff-Portsmouth, so assume it is still planned to be Turbos). What a mess. Cardiff-Portsmouth needs 5-car end-door units, INTERCITY routes mostly need 7-9 coaches and Networker Turbos should NEVER BE USED ON REGIONAL EXPRESS SERVICES.

Things have changed significantly since the initial rolling stock plans for the post electrification GWML. Just this month, we've just seen the plans for the commuter stock changing yet again, with a net result that even more new stock and even more seats are being provided.

I'm half convinced the RMT only supported a Brexit in the hope it would stop passenger growth so we could all catch our breathes. It's just never ending, and I really don't envy TOC staff who see more passengers going through their stations and on their trains on a daily basis than BR would see during special events, like Papal visits and Cup finals.

The original plans for HST stock worked, they don't work now, with yet more IEP/AT300 stock coming into the franchise, and yet more passenger demand expected to come, which is likely to result in some or all of the 5-car IEP/AT300 fleet being extended in due course, or additional 5-car units being ordered.

The pathing plans have changed too - with more 110mph services operated by more Class 387 units, and the effects of pathing more 125mph IEP units on the core electrified GWML routes, HSTs really start to get in the way with their acceleration, and will be unable to couple up to IEP units to add much needed flexibility on diagramming. There's also an issue of maintaining HST stock alongside IEP/AT300 stock, running two fleets out of the same depots is inefficient and ultimately limits the absolute amount of stock which can be operated from those depots.

The delay in electrification is another reason the plans have changed - there's no time and no flexibility to send stock off to have power doors fitted, retention toilets added before returning to service. The addition of extra capacity by procuring new stock became, essentially, the only realistic option.

5-car units are an important part in balancing capacity and maintenance - we're going back to portion working, and remember, these are 26m vehicles with 270 standard and 45 first seats, which can be doubled up to provide 540 standard and 90 first seats when needed (slightly more than the 9 car variants). There's not always a need for 2+8 HSTs to run into Cornwall, particularly in the winter, whereas different needs in the summer will allow some Oxford turns to be covered by 5 car units and additional 9 car units deployed to the south west.

The Turbo units will be overhauled and be fitted with different interiors before running the Cardiff to Portsmouth services, gaining 2+2 seating, they'll be very much like the ScotRail Turbostars.

You're getting hung up about numbers of vehicles, not capacity. That's a classic mistake, but one people need to stop making. 26m IEP vehicles are not comparable to 23m Mark 3 vehicles. And they're really rather good inside anyway. Voyagers they most certainly are not.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The delay in electrification is another reason the plans have changed - there's no time and no flexibility to send stock off to have power doors fitted, retention toilets added before returning to service. The addition of extra capacity by procuring new stock became, essentially, the only realistic option.

Except that, they now look like there are going to plug-door fit some sets (albiet not many), so there is some time to do at least some by the sound of it.

we're going back to portion working

Please NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO. Portion working with non-UEG units should be forbidden in franchise agreements in my opinion, as it is not in the best interests of passengers.

remember, these are 26m vehicles with 270 standard and 45 first seats, which can be doubled up to provide 540 standard and 90 first seats when needed (slightly more than the 9 car variants)

Yes, the vehicles are longer than mark3s, but that doesn't actually gain much capacity. In fact, depending on whether you have a full buffet (and given the IEPs don't have one, you might not), a 2+5 IC125 could actually have more seats than a 5-car AT300, because of the space lost in the driving vehicles through cabs and first-class kitchens (the space lost is such that a 10-car class 800 formation made up of two 5-car sets will have only 3 more seats than a fixed formation 9-car set). Even with a full buffet (17 seats first class), you can still get around 314 seats in a 2+5 IC125 if the other 4 coaches are standard class. So, replacing a 2+8 IC125 with a 5-car IEP is comparable to taking 3 coaches out of an IC125, frequency enhancments may cover some of the reduction, and a 9-car 800/802 is quite a lot bigger than a 2+8 IC125, but the point still stands.

There's not always a need for 2+8 HSTs to run into Cornwall, particularly in the winter

Maybe not in Cornwall, but between London and Exeter/Plymouth all 8 coaches will probably be needed at some point. You can't fit 125mph trains with UEGs so that rules out portion working in my mind, meaning you either have to accept the over-provision at the extremities of the route or terminate some of the quieter services at Plymouth in the winter with a connecting 158 (or 2). There's never going to be enough 158s for that so running the excessively-long trains all the way to Penzance is the only option that is in the passenger's interests, as BR presumably decided when they introduced the IC125s on the route.

The Turbo units will be overhauled and be fitted with different interiors before running the Cardiff to Portsmouth services, gaining 2+2 seating, they'll be very much like the ScotRail Turbostars.

I thought the plan was that refurbishment would only apply to the 166s, with with 165s retaining 2+3 seating. Now that the 166s are apparently staying at Reading depot, that means Portsmouth-Cardiff will presumably now be 165s with 2+3 seating rather than the planned 165 + 166 combo. Even with the original plan of using 166s with 2+2 seating, the doors are in the wrong place for a regional express service like Cardiff-Portsmouth.

 

[jimm]

Except that, they now look like there are going to plug-door fit some sets (albiet not many), so there is some time to do at least some by the sound of it.

Except that, as has been stated plenty of times above and elsewhere, these modified HSTs, if approved, will be to meet a specific short-term requirement in a defined area of the GWR network as a result of the rolling stock cascade being put back by electrification delays - and, it appears, a newly-identified need for more Reading-Gatwick rolling stock. Converting enough full-length HST sets for West Country express services and providing long-term support for them (not least in London) would be another matter entirely. The short HSTs can presumably all be maintained at Laira, which is already equipped for the trains and has skilled staff.

Please NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO. Portion working with non-UEG units should be forbidden in franchise agreements in my opinion, as it is not in the best interests of passengers.

Maybe not in Cornwall, but between London and Exeter/Plymouth all 8 coaches will probably be needed at some point. You can't fit 125mph trains with UEGs so that rules out portion working in my mind, meaning you either have to accept the over-provision at the extremities of the route or terminate some of the quieter services at Plymouth in the winter with a connecting 158 (or 2). There's never going to be enough 158s for that so running the excessively-long trains all the way to Penzance is the only option that is in the passenger's interests, as BR presumably decided when they introduced the IC125s on the route.

Not this again. Guess what, almost all trains on the route will run with nine-car or 2x5-car formations all the way to and from Plymouth... unless you're going to start quibbling about the Exeter semi-fasts, which - also guess what - will be busier at places closer to London.

What your mind and your opinion say bears no relation to the reality of operating railways cost-effectively and efficiently. Over-provision of seating capacity in places like Cornwall (or west of Cardiff much of the time) is not cost-effective, which is why GWR wants to operate differently in future.

BR's decision to put HSTs on the route reflected a desire to standardise the type of rolling stock used on long-distance Western Region services and replace ageing locomotives. Remember that when this happened, the HSTs used were seven-car formations, seating about 280 in standard, 96 in first, plus 17 or so in the TRUB buffet-restaurant, so just under 400 seats. Probably a bit of a squeeze on a summer Saturday, for sure, but rather less overcapacity in the winter than an eight-car set now has, even with the low-density layout.

I thought the plan was that refurbishment would only apply to the 166s, with with 165s retaining 2+3 seating. Now that the 166s are apparently staying at Reading depot, that means Portsmouth-Cardiff will presumably now be 165s with 2+3 seating rather than the planned 165 + 166 combo. Even with the original plan of using 166s with 2+2 seating, the doors are in the wrong place for a regional express service like Cardiff-Portsmouth.

No, the plan for the short HSTs means 158s stay on Cardiff-Portsmouth, in four-car formations. As stated in threads in the rolling stock area.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Converting enough full-length HST sets for West Country express services and providing long-term support for them (not least in London) would be another matter entirely. The short HSTs can presumably all be maintained at Laira, which is already equipped for the trains and has skilled staff.

Currently, FirstGWR use over 110 power cars for over 50 IC125 sets. 'Enough full-length HST sets for West Country Express services' would be in the order of 20 sets (I think it requires 14-15 diagrams). That is significantly less than the current 50 odd sets. I accept that Old Oak Common will not be able to maintain IC125s anymore in future, but with only 20 sets (or perhaps slightly fewer) Laira can presumably maintain them, just as you say would be the case for short sets. According to the list in the GWR livery topic, 26 sets are currently allocated to Laira, so the plan I'm advocating would still be less sets allocated to Laira than at present). Continued maintainance of IC125s for PAD-PLY/PNZ can't be an issue anyway, because continued use of them on that route apparently WAS THE PLAN at one point.

No, the plan for the short HSTs means 158s stay on Cardiff-Portsmouth, in four-car formations. As stated in threads in the rolling stock area.

My comments were based on the first post in this topic, which states:

the number of 165/166 units retained at Reading depot will increase. The rest for Bristol as planned for Cardiff-Portsmouth.

That sounds to me like Turbos are still planned for Cardiff-Portsmouth (which, combined with Modern Railway's statement that all 166s are staying at Reading, means 165s for CDF-PMH), but I admit that isn't the same story that's been put out elsewhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Remember that when this happened, the HSTs used were seven-car formations, ...[snip].... Probably a bit of a squeeze on a summer Saturday, for sure, but rather less overcapacity in the winter than an eight-car set now has

Going back to 2+7 sets would be only one coach less than today's 2+8 sets, and my history's not great but at the time the IC125s were introduced were probably still in a state of managed decline. That's very different to taking away three coaches today at a time of growth in rail use.

 

[LowLevel]

It's been posted elsewhere that the plan is apparently 4 car 158s on Cardiff - Portsmouth expresses with stops taken out and Turbos on semi fast/stopper trains.

 

[The Ham]

GW IEP is 18x 9-car sets and 32x 5-car sets diagrammed each day if I recall correctly. That's 322 diagrammed vehicles. That's diagrams, to resource that Agility Trains West will I think have a fleet of 21x 9-car and 36x 5-car, or 369 vehicles. That doesn't include the Plymouth/Penzance class 802 order, and on that basis I think it is an overall increase in capacity, HOWEVER, much of the increase seems to be thanks to the planned doubling of frequency between London and Bristol Temple Meads to 4tph, other routes (at least based on the DfT's draft diagrams, which are apparently inoperable in some cases) such as London-Swansea would see less capacity than today. According to Wikipedia, the class 802 fleet for GW is 173 vehicles, a total of 542 new vehicles across the Great Western fleet, but keep in mind that the class 802s are NOT IEP units.

Yes, I was being lazy in my first post about that. However you may have missed that I did correct myself several hours before you posted this about including the 802's.

Total coaches isn't a totally fair comparison (but was useful when pointing out that we needed something other than a few new units and keeping the HST's).

However, with 110mph EMU's potentially being used to run some of the fast services to Oxford (freeing up units to be used elsewhere) and the faster journey times that the new trains can achieve (allowing units to turn around and go back again sooner, which is the same as having some more sets) and portion working on the quieter edges of the network (which means that units can turn around sooner and therefore is the same as having some more units) then the few extra units required for more services to Bristol is covered.

As an example with Bristol to London being 22 minutes faster (80 minutes rather than 100 minutes) that means that instead of the same train being able to run (assuming a 20 minute turn around) the next service from London 4 hours after it leaves London whilst with the new trains it can do so 3.5 hours after it leaves London (but with 25 minute turnarounds). Meaning that rather than needing 16 trains to run a train every 15 minutes, you need 14 trains to run a train every 15 minutes.

Yes a saving of 2 trains isn't a lot, but given that to run the old time table with a half hour frequency of two trains per hour would have required 8 trains you only need an extra 6 trains.

 

[jimm]

Currently, FirstGWR use over 110 power cars for over 50 IC125 sets. 'Enough full-length HST sets for West Country Express services' would be in the order of 20 sets (I think it requires 14-15 diagrams). That is significantly less than the current 50 odd sets. I accept that Old Oak Common will not be able to maintain IC125s anymore in future, but with only 20 sets (or perhaps slightly fewer) Laira can presumably maintain them, just as you say would be the case for short sets. According to the list in the GWR livery topic, 26 sets are currently allocated to Laira, so the plan I'm advocating would still be less sets allocated to Laira than at present). Continued maintainance of IC125s for PAD-PLY/PNZ can't be an issue anyway, because continued use of them on that route apparently WAS THE PLAN at one point.

I know how many power cars and sets of coaches GWR has, thanks. So what? They are being removed from GWR front-rank express services. End of story.

If they had remained on London- West Country services long-term, then there would have been a need for a new properly-equipped light maintenance facility for HSTs at the London end of the line. Since they aren't staying on the route, GWR does not need to provide one.

My comments were based on the first post in this topic, which states:That sounds to me like Turbos are still planned for Cardiff-Portsmouth (which, combined with Modern Railway's statement that all 166s are staying at Reading, means 165s for CDF-PMH), but I admit that isn't the same story that's been put out elsewhere.

That post pre-dates the appearance of Modern Railways and its comments about the idea of all 166s staying at Reading. The whole thing is still up in the air waiting for DfT to decide on these HSTs for the West Country.

But unless you know of something else that is going to be available to work Bristol commuter services instead of the 165s, then the 158s look likely to stay on Cardiff-Portsmouth for the time being - unless you think 158s are just the job for commuter trains around Bristol rather than 165s...

See posts 995 and 1000 here http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=115240&page=67 for what Rich McLean - who seems pretty well-informed on the subject of GWR stock - says about the 158s and Cardiff-Portsmouth, HSTs for Devon and Cornwall local duties, etc.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Going back to 2+7 sets would be only one coach less than today's 2+8 sets, and my history's not great but at the time the IC125s were introduced were probably still in a state of managed decline. That's very different to taking away three coaches today at a time of growth in rail use.

You clearly don't want to take on board anything that anyone has said above or on many occasions in the past in other threads about overall passenger capacity and portion working as part of the IEP/AT300 operational plan if it doesn't fit in with your views.

There is nothing wrong in 'taking away' excess capacity from places it is not needed - like west of Plymouth much of the year - and using it elsewhere, by sending part of the train back towards London on a job where the seats will be needed.

The future timetable for Cornwall will provide more trains throughout the day, with a better spread of seating capacity, which is rather more likely to provide a service that passengers feel is in their interests than the current evening procession of near-empty HSTs heading to Penzance.

 

[The Ham]

Going back to 2+7 sets would be only one coach less than today's 2+8 sets, and my history's not great but at the time the IC125s were introduced were probably still in a state of managed decline. That's very different to taking away three coaches today at a time of growth in rail use.

The thing is there is a big difference between taking away 3 coaches from a train and running only that train and taking away 3 coaches and running pairs of the resulting trains together where it is needed.

Yes rail passenger growth is going up a lot, but where there are 400 passengers will likely see a faster increase in the number of passengers than where there are 100 passengers.

You also seem to forget that GWR are appearing to be increasing the total numbers of services west of Plymouth by a) running more 802's from London (IIRC a true hourly frequency, so something like 12 to 14, rather than 9 services a day) and b) running more "local" services.

Let us assume that ALL the services west of Plymouth cease to be HST's and are only run as 5 coach trains, that means rather than 9*535 seats (4,815) per day there would be 12*315 seats (3,780) which is a difference of basicly 1,000 seats over the day. Therefore to exceed the total number of seats GWR need to run 4 extra units (either by running more than 12 services and/or by running full length, 9 or 2*5, trains) giving a total of 5,040 seats over the day.

You also have to remember that anything done now (ish) only has to last until the next franchise gets more units which may mean only be 2022.

 

[455driver]

Perhaps you are thinking of the withdrawn Irish examples. Wrong gauge, apparently in poor condition (corrosion) and I suspect all scrapped by now.

I do believe he is on about a certain class of EMU which were formerly used on Gatwick Express services and prior to that on services to Weymouth

I was counting the whole 80x fleet ( I.e. including the trains for the Cornish services) for GWR only, as that includes gives a fair comparison on the HST fleet. If you just count the IEP Fleet you have to deduct the number of HST's which are needed to run the Cornish services.

So is that the whole 80x fleet or just the ones for GWR?

It aint a difficult question!

 

[swt_passenger]

So the likely conclusion so far, about 5 pages into yet another GW rolling stock thread, is that Rhydgaled probably still doesn't really like the idea of the IEP?

 

[455driver]

So the likely conclusion so far, about 5 pages into yet another GW rolling stock thread, is that Rhydgaled probably still doesn't really like the idea of the IEP?

Or the concept of removing 3 coaches from an 8 coach train and the remaining 5 coach train being an increase in seating capacity on the 2 or 3 coach train it replaces!

 

[The Ham]

So is that the whole 80x fleet or just the ones for GWR?

It aint a difficult question!

To make it clearer I will simplify the post I made to remove the bit in brackets (which was only clarifying that I was including the 802's) as such my post would read:

I was counting the whole 80x fleet for GWR only.

Just to be clear that doesn't include any 80x derivatives for any other TOC's or any other potential future 80x orders for GWR.

 

[fgwrich]

The short HSTs can presumably all be maintained at Laira, which is already equipped for the trains and has skilled staff.

That is of course another plus point in all of this - Before this announcement, Laira was facing a fairly uncertain future with only train servicing needing to be done in the future, unless Hatachi were to add any of it's workforce down there. Now it'll at least have some guaranteed HST for at least 5 more years yet, in turn keeping some of it's workforce at the depot.

 

[dubscottie]

They can't just chop off the end of a Mk3.. The main collision pillars are either side of the gangway.

Remove them and the coach dangerous. Just look at any accident (Polmont, Colwich etc) and you will see how important they are.

I bet the 321's that have AC fitted have had the roofline reinforced substantially.

Almost every part of a Mk3 is load bearing. You can't just cut holes in it. Look at the sleeper they tried to turn into a day coach..

So weak it could not be moved.

 

[DT611]

Perhaps you are thinking of the withdrawn Irish examples. Wrong gauge, apparently in poor condition (corrosion) and I suspect all scrapped by now.

A few have been refurbished for belmont as mentioned, a couple are preserved, and the rest scrapped. They were left out in the open at a couple of locations since withdrawel.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Perhaps you are thinking of the withdrawn Irish examples. Wrong gauge, apparently in poor condition (corrosion) and I suspect all scrapped by now.

Whoooooooooosh! :roll:

I do believe he is on about a certain class of EMU which were formerly used on Gatwick Express services and prior to that on services to Weymouth.

Indeed. I'm amazed it took so long for anyone to make that comment. Well done sir!

So the likely conclusion so far, about 5 pages into yet another GW rolling stock thread, is that Rhydgaled probably still doesn't really like the idea of the IEP?

At least he didn't start going on about class 67s.

 

[edwin_m]

They can't just chop off the end of a Mk3.. The main collision pillars are either side of the gangway.

Remove them and the coach dangerous. Just look at any accident (Polmont, Colwich etc) and you will see how important they are.

I bet the 321's that have AC fitted have had the roofline reinforced substantially.

Almost every part of a Mk3 is load bearing. You can't just cut holes in it. Look at the sleeper they tried to turn into a day coach..

So weak it could not be moved.

I assume they will have to design a structural frame, compliant with all collision standards and probably including the "crumple zone" required by the current ones. This would have to provide at least as much structural strength as what is there now, once it was welded in as a replacement. If the structure is so weak that it won't stay in shape when the ends are removed, then there could also be some sort of temporary support frame inserted before the start of conversion and removed afterwards.

It doesn't sound cheap or simple, but presumably someone has decided this sort of heavy metal-bashing is a better choice than having to insert the complex mechanics and electrics of a power door into an existing opening whose dimensions apparently vary slightly across the fleet.

 

[broadgage]

So the likely conclusion so far, about 5 pages into yet another GW rolling stock thread, is that Rhydgaled probably still doesn't really like the idea of the IEP?

Well he is not the only one !
I do not like the idea of an intercity express service being downgraded to DMU operation.
As is well known the new units lack through gangways if run in multiple. Sods law clearly states that the Pullman (if it survives the downgrade) will be in the other unit, as will be the first class host, and the train manger to referee disputes over reserved seats etc.

Years ago I stated that the new DMUs would not have a buffet. I was widely criticised for this "do not knock them until you have seen them" and a bit later "It is an essential requirement that internal layout can be changed" and then the eventual admission that they do not have a buffet, but that this fine because the survey to prove that it is not wanted has already been done.

I believe that I also forecast the much reduced first class provision, now downgraded to 31 seats.

I wonder what other downgrades are in store. A modernised seating layout perhaps to cram another few seats into each vehicle ? We already have raised floors with internal ramps, and limited internal headroom. (to make room for the underfloor engines that Mark Hopwood stated that passengers do not want on intercity trains.)

A proper intercity train IMHO is not a 5 car DMU without buffet and with only 31 first class seats. Two such units coupled together give a decent capacity , but the lack of gangways, and no buffet, and first class being spread over two random locations feels like a commuter service and not intercity.

 

[CP165]

I assume they will have to design a structural frame, compliant with all collision standards and probably including the "crumple zone" required by the current ones. This would have to provide at least as much structural strength as what is there now, once it was welded in as a replacement. If the structure is so weak that it won't stay in shape when the ends are removed, then there could also be some sort of temporary support frame inserted before the start of conversion and removed afterwards.

It doesn't sound cheap or simple, but presumably someone has decided this sort of heavy metal-bashing is a better choice than having to insert the complex mechanics and electrics of a power door into an existing opening whose dimensions apparently vary slightly across the fleet.

I may be wrong but reading the small piece on this in Modern Railways the wording seems to suggest that rather than lopping the ends of the coach off, the door aperture will be cut into a bigger, standard size and then a standard door module slotted in place.

 

[Rhydgaled]

There is nothing wrong in 'taking away' excess capacity from places it is not needed - like west of Plymouth much of the year - and using it elsewhere

Nothing wrong with that in theory, but I don't think there is a satisfactory way of achieving it. Keeping the excess capacity in places sounds like the only option to meet passenger's needs, especially if that capacity is needed at certain times of the year. The suggestion that it could be done

by sending part of the train back towards London on a job where the seats will be needed.

would be reasonable if the line was electrified and had a maximum linespeed of no more than 110mph so you could use a new OHLE EMU design similar to 158/159/442/444. You cannot do that though because the line isn't electrified and the linespeed is over 110mph east of Reading.

We already have raised floors with internal ramps, and limited internal headroom. (to make room for the underfloor engines that Mark Hopwood stated that passengers do not want on intercity trains.)

Specifically, if I recall correctly, he said that stakeholders didn't want class 222s on the PAD-PLY/PNZ route because of the underfloor engines and cramped interiors. He said nothing about underfloor engines being rejected on routes where bi-modes would only be running on diesel on routes from PAD to Worcester (wires to Oxford), Carmarthen (wires to Swansea) and Weston-Super-Mare (wires to Bristol). Being unable to keep the IC125s going was one thing, but now that they apparently may be retained anyway the option is theoretically there for stock without underfloor engines to be used. I feel that the stakeholder's rejection of underfloor engines for such a long distance as Reading/Newbury to Plymouth/Penzance should not be forgotten by FirstGWR.

 

[The Ham]

Specifically, if I recall correctly, he said that stakeholders didn't want class 222s on the PAD-PLY/PNZ route because of the underfloor engines and cramped interiors. He said nothing about underfloor engines being rejected on routes where bi-modes would only be running on diesel on routes from PAD to Worcester (wires to Oxford), Carmarthen (wires to Swansea) and Weston-Super-Mare (wires to Bristol). Being unable to keep the IC125s going was one thing, but now that they apparently may be retained anyway the option is theoretically there for stock without underfloor engines to be used. I feel that the stakeholder's rejection of underfloor engines for such a long distance as Reading/Newbury to Plymouth/Penzance should not be forgotten by FirstGWR.

The thing is the revised HST's will be shorter (so less strain on the loco's) and used on secondary routes (so if they go wrong will cause less disruption, especially if they went wrong near London).

Also by being shorter units there will be less that need to be converted, which although puts the cost up per unit, means that if they don't get the return on the investment expected that the overall cost to GWR wouldn't be as high.

The problem is if GWR didn't sort out the 802's now then it could well be that others had taken the production line space so that they may have had to have done more 110mph EMU running to Bristol to replace the HST's at a later date (which really wouldn't go done well with stakeholders).

Likewise, the 222's would have likely been used into London until such time as the wires reached Plymouth at which point passengers west of Plymouth would have had to change trains (even once the wires reached Exeter I wouldn't have ruled out the loss of some through services), whilst the 802's guarantee the status quo with regards to through running.

Stakeholders may say that they don't like underfloor engines but they also say that they want faster journey times, as such the down side of 3/5 or 5/9 coaches having engines (compared with all coaches on the 222's) maybe is offset in some people mind by the faster journey times (and the possibility of finding a seat in a coach where there are no underfloor engines and higher capacity trains than the 222's would have been able to provide). It's also worth noting that the 222's would have need their engines from London to the end of the wires, which means that the 802's are already at a big advantage over the 222's.

So rather than 5:15 with underfloor engines to Penzance it would likely be about 4:20 with underfloor engines and about 40 minutes running off the OHLE (a >15% reduction compared with the 222's, assuming a 15 minute journey time saving). Likewise to Plymouth has changed from 3:15 to 2:20 of using the engines and 40 minutes (28% reduction compared with the 222's) and by the time you consider those going to Exeter and it is 2:10 vs 1:15 & 40 (a 46% reduction compared to the 222's).

In reality, although the stakeholders haven't got what they said that they wanted, most of the stakeholders would be accepting of what they have got. This is also possibly because during the life of the 802's the number of miles which the engines are being used should continue to fall, based on the above it wouldn't take much before passengers to Exeter see a 50% reduction in engine use compared to the 222's.

 

[jimm]

Well he is not the only one !
I do not like the idea of an intercity express service being downgraded to DMU operation.
As is well known the new units lack through gangways if run in multiple. Sods law clearly states that the Pullman (if it survives the downgrade) will be in the other unit, as will be the first class host, and the train manger to referee disputes over reserved seats etc.

Years ago I stated that the new DMUs would not have a buffet. I was widely criticised for this "do not knock them until you have seen them" and a bit later "It is an essential requirement that internal layout can be changed" and then the eventual admission that they do not have a buffet, but that this fine because the survey to prove that it is not wanted has already been done.

I believe that I also forecast the much reduced first class provision, now downgraded to 31 seats.

I wonder what other downgrades are in store. A modernised seating layout perhaps to cram another few seats into each vehicle ? We already have raised floors with internal ramps, and limited internal headroom. (to make room for the underfloor engines that Mark Hopwood stated that passengers do not want on intercity trains.)

A proper intercity train IMHO is not a 5 car DMU without buffet and with only 31 first class seats. Two such units coupled together give a decent capacity , but the lack of gangways, and no buffet, and first class being spread over two random locations feels like a commuter service and not intercity.

Deary me, how dare things on the railways, and in the world generally, change...

Has the thought occurred to you that someone doing stock allocations might just manage to put a nine-car set on workings with a Pullman restaurant? Probably not the greatest challenge in the world, with all of 12 services a day to cope with.

That assumes that restaurants remain part of the service offer, as we don't actually know that yet, do we? Cue more wailing and gnashing of teeth...

Even if First continues to offer them, a potential new franchisee might drop them.

For all the fuss made about them, the number of passengers using the restaurants every day, compared with the number of people riding on the services they are provided on, never mind GWR's trains generally, is very small.

Not entirely surprising with changing lifestyles and eating habits and shorter journey times - whether you like it or not.

Fewer people are buying first class tickets - or businesses are less willing to pay for them - so why on earth should there be vast numbers of first class seats? Again, first class is neither here nor there to the great mass of GWR customers. If you want to pay for it, that's up to you, and if you want to be sure of a seat, get a reservation...

And how exactly does a nine-car IEP working all the way from Swansea under 25kv, complete with Pullman restaurant breakfast service, fit in with your 5-car dmu world...?

Nothing wrong with that in theory, but I don't think there is a satisfactory way of achieving it. Keeping the excess capacity in places sounds like the only option to meet passenger's needs, especially if that capacity is needed at certain times of the year.

So we just give up and continue to run lots of empty coaches around all the time - and hike fares in order to pay for it. Pure genius... when are you replacing Mark Hopwood then?

At the times of the year when the extra capacity is needed, you send a 2X5 formation past Plymouth, you know, on summer Saturdays, days when there aren't many London commuters and business travellers to deal with, so stock is available for this purpose. Rather like GWR sends extra HSTs to the West Country on summer Saturdays right now...

The suggestion that it could be done would be reasonable if the line was electrified and had a maximum linespeed of no more than 110mph so you could use a new OHLE EMU design similar to 158/159/442/444. You cannot do that though because the line isn't electrified and the linespeed is over 110mph east of Reading.

Just because you are obsessed with corridor connections doesn't mean the rest of the world is. Please move on from this pointless obsession.

 

[dgl]

Whoooooooooosh! :roll:

I do believe he is on about a certain class of EMU which were formerly used on Gatwick Express services and prior to that on services to Weymouth.

Forgive me father for I have sinned :cry:

 

[Philip Phlopp]

We already have raised floors with internal ramps, and limited internal headroom. (to make room for the underfloor engines that Mark Hopwood stated that passengers do not want on intercity trains.)

Internal headroom is not compromised unless you're 7ft+ in height. The pantograph well remains the lowest headroom area on board and it's still sufficient for all but the tallest passengers.

 

[Rhydgaled]

So we just give up and continue to run lots of empty coaches around all the time

It's what BR did (ok, so the IC125s were 2+7 when introduced, that's still still 2 coaches more than is currently planned for most GW 802s). Please pay particular attention to the word 'satisfactory' in my earlier post:

I don't think there is a satisfactory way of achieving it.

I fully accept it is possible to run fewer empty coaches on the quieter parts of the network, but whichever way you do it there are problems:

• Portion working with 125/140mph stock, as discussed, can lead to problems with pepole boarding the wrong portion, being unable to make use of the full train (possibly ending up with empty coaches again, only this time while others are packed) and in most cases will require extra staff
• If you don't use portion working, you have to terminate the long train somewhere and provide a connecting DMU/EMU, and making passengers change trains is just as likely to attract complaints

Just because you are obsessed with corridor connections doesn't mean the rest of the world is. Please move on from this pointless obsession.

Obsession maybe, but I would argue it is far from pointless.

Internal headroom is not compromised unless you're 7ft+ in height. The pantograph well remains the lowest headroom area on board and it's still sufficient for all but the tallest passengers.

Hitachi have done a good design job then if that is true,

• is the vertical space from floor to ceiling in the raised-floor coaches of an 80x at least that from floor to ceiling under the pantograph well (which if I recall correctly is in the low-floor driving coaches)?
• is the minimum vertical space from floor to ceiling on an 80x greater than on a Pendolino?
• have you been on a class 80x unit and/or seen measurements to confirm the above?

I ask because my head has touched the ceiling on a Pendolino in the past (I think I must have been under the pantograph well) and I'm not 7ft tall.

 

[The Ham]

I fully accept it is possible to run fewer empty coaches on the quieter parts of the network, but whichever way you do it there are problems:

• Portion working with 125/140mph stock, as discussed, can lead to problems with people boarding the wrong portion, being unable to make use of the full train (possibly ending up with empty coaches again, only this time while others are packed) and in most cases will require extra staff
• If you don't use portion working, you have to terminate the long train somewhere and provide a connecting DMU/EMU, and making passengers change trains is just as likely to attract complaints

Although SWT's have corridor connections, most people will make sure that they are in the right bit of the train before boarding. As trying to walk through 4 coaches on a 450 isn't always that easy.

Given that a lot of long distance travellers have seat bookings, GWR mostly only needs to ensure that they book people in the right portion and that the displays show which portion is where, i.e. coach A to E for all stops to X & Y and coaches F to J is for all stops to X only with the train in the correct order (i.e. A to E is at the front of the train). In doing so as long as passengers are in the right half of the platform then they don't need to worry about there not being a connection between the two units.

Given that at a split point there will be a timetabled pause even people in the wrong portion will have time to move to the correct part of the train.

There are times, when trains are running late, where SWT's lock the connecting doors meaning that passengers are "locked" in the wrong part (it also means that the disconnect time is shorter at the dividing station) and there does't appear to be a problem.

Yes it's not as ideal as it could be, but I think it will still be fine.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Hitachi have done a good design job then if that is true,

• is the vertical space from floor to ceiling in the raised-floor coaches of an 80x at least that from floor to ceiling under the pantograph well (which if I recall correctly is in the low-floor driving coaches)?
• is the minimum vertical space from floor to ceiling on an 80x greater than on a Pendolino?
• have you been on a class 80x unit and/or seen measurements to confirm the above?

I ask because my head has touched the ceiling on a Pendolino in the past (I think I must have been under the pantograph well) and I'm not 7ft tall.

Hitachi have done a good job, but then they own various other operations which have assisted, such as Hitachi Air Conditioning, which has made it easier.

The floor height, incidentally, is about 100mm higher, but with a normal body profile and less rounded roof profile, there's not the need to drop the internal ceiling down lower to route ducts and wiring.

 

[hwl]

I may be wrong but reading the small piece on this in Modern Railways the wording seems to suggest that rather than lopping the ends of the coach off, the door aperture will be cut into a bigger, standard size and then a standard door module slotted in place.

Sounds similar to what Chiltern did then!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Didn't MML run a short HST set, with slam doors, on occasion of they were short of a 222 in the past? How long was it?

I also thought that 2+5 HST sets were regarded as uneconomic, given the power car maintenance cost and access charges, compared to the carrying capacity.
They were used in that configuration for a short period by Virgin XC before all the Voyagers arrived.
What has changed to make them economical? The only material difference since is the MTU re-engining.
And then there is the cost of the bodywork upgrade and TSI compliance work.
GWR seems to have replaced FCC/TSGN as the franchise with an infinite demand for rolling stock.
No matter how much you throw at them they want more...