What's the point? You could have a headline Bristol Temple Meads - London Paddington non-stop and a Temple Meads - Parkway - Reading - Paddington service.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
IEP Annoucement
- Thread starter Zoe
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Class 33
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,362
I think my two suggestions are a good idea. But likewise I think your alternate suggestion is a good idea too, and a better idea than my suggestions. I would LOVE to see a Bristol Temple Meads-London Paddington non-stop service introduced come 2016, but I'd be VERY (pleasantly) surprised if such a service is introduced.
I guess we'll just have to wait for 2016. Bit of a long wait. Though hopefully draft timetables of the new services will be published a little before that?
I expect this is in part due to the fact that almost all the seats are taken up by people with advance fares leaving little room for people that buy on the day.
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
In the latest Rail magazine it is suggesting that even when IEP is introduced that the HST's will live on to do the trains to Penzance, so you are going to still have Diesel trains running under the wires so as has been said before in this thread what is the point then of the bi - mode trains if this is true?
Yes, HSTs are to be retained on the Plymouth/Penzance route and also on the MML. The difference is that trains on this route will only run under the wires as far as Bristol of Newbury. In the case of Swansea only a small part of the route will not be under the wires.
starrymarkb
Established Member
Good point, though I wonder if that's one of the things chopped from the revised IEP lite spec...
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,188
Still talk of putting the old tracks back up the bank to Filton. Would solve it if it ever went ahead.
Is there still room through Lawrence Hill?
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,608
There are many branches to the existing GW service pattern. Despite all the complaints emanating from Swansea, bimodes will also be required for Cheltenham, Weston, Hereford, Worcester, and possibly the semifasts on the B&H, even if Plymouth/Penzance remains with HSTs.
It isn't a Swansea only issue, that's just where all the noise is...
tbtc
Veteran Member
...which is exactly why the MML would be a better route.
Apart from one Nottingham service a day (which starts in Lincoln), one Corby service a day (which starts at Melton) and one summer Saturday York service (which starts in Scarborough) its self contained.
I would suggest that too, and extend that service to Swansea as well. That would give:
1tph to Swansea calling at Reading, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff and Swansea (extending occasionally to CMN/PMD with a loco swap) and 1tph to Swansea calling at Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea.
Cheltenham should be electric (not wiring the one diversionary route that is garauranteed to be used at least once a week is a bit daft, particularlly if you can get WAG to pay for Cheltenham - Severn Tunnel Junction as part of ValleyLines electrification). Worcester/Great Malvern/Hereford is atricky one, I can't figure out what's best to do with it.
ECML can have an all new all-electric fleet, which frees up yet more 125s to help keep the west via Westbury running with INTERCITY 125s.
tbtc
Veteran Member
The reason for not electrifying to Swansea is that there is only one train an hour - double the frequency and you might as well electrify it. BUT, if you are going to electrify it then surely it makes more sense to run one of the services in place of the Manchester - Swansea (Carmarthen etc), replacing a DMU (with a shuttle west of Swansea)
Wiring the Cheltenham route for a once a week service? There are routes with trains every half hour (or better) that aren't being electrified - sounds like a bit of a luxury to me
anthony263
Established Member
With regards to the wires to Swansea have the governemnt forgotten about the off peak Cardiff - Swansea swanline services? these could easily be run by EMU's thus freeing up to 2 DMU's to be used on other ATW services maybe a Swansea - fishguard hbr and a extra service on the heart of wales line.
That said i know a few swanlines early in the mornings/late at night do run through to Shrewsbury/west wales
sprinterguy
Established Member
It is reportedly the case that the Bi-mode trains are to have three diesel engines under each of the three intermediate carriages to provide sufficient traction power to run off the wires. It is being said that one of these engines will be used to provide “hotel power” whilst running on leccy under the wires.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Cheltenham also has an (hourly?) HST service to London. Given this towns proximity to the announced GWML electrification, it would surely make sense to extend the wires all the way through to Cheltenham to avoid using Bi-mode trains over this stretch, although realistically this is the only service that would be able to make use of the wires on this stretch, unless Crosscountry gets panto cars for their Voyagers.
I would hope that the via Gloucester diversionary route to Severn Tunnel Junction from Swindon would be being electrified without question. Whilst it may not be too tricky to install catenary through the Severn Tunnel in the first place, I can foresee there being many instances where the tunnel will have to be closed for maintenance to the OHLE, which will surely need more TLC than OHLE over plain line out in the open.
LexyBoy
Established Member
It's not been announced AFAIAA after all the Kemble-Swindon redoubling has been turned down yet again - though it would make a lot of sense. I expect the plan is that there will be enough bi-modes and spare HSTs on Sundays to operate the service. In my experience those diverted services are extremely busy so Id be a bit worried of a 5 car IEP turning up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
bnm's signature said:
Sorry, couldn't resist!
starrymarkb
Established Member
Apparently it's easier to meet emmissions regs with multiple smaller engines.
Actually I've just remembered that is a big reason for no new Diesel Locomotives any time soon. The new MTU4000 for the latest regs will not fit in a UK size locomotive, hence why Grand Central needed to get their HST's re-engined before production of the existing engine stopped
Does that mean that Deltics and Westerns were more efficient than 40s and 47s? If so, then perhaps the next new class of diesel locos should be twin-engine.
Anonywave
Member
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2010
- Messages
- 52
Bristol Parkway can get very busy at times, can you remember which service you were on? Also, considering that it is a major transport hub im sure that it would be benefitted by the extra links to services
Yes thats a better idea. It would have much more benefits although Reading enjoys a regular service to London anyway but iirc, beside Paddington, it's the busiest station on the line.
Agreed
Well, my full idea is to make Swanline an hourly ValleyLines 3-car class 377 and extend it through to Cheltenham in place of the Maesteg service which would be routed to Ebbw Vale instead of Cheltenham (and also switched to 377 operation). That would mean you weren't just electrifing the diversionary route for the weekly divertions. The Swanlines that run through to Heart Of Wales / West Wales / Manchester can probablly easily become seperate from those services if switched to class 377 operation.
Unfortunatly, this plan does not help Fishguard. As far as I know the Swanlines, except the ones that use Heart Of Wales units, are all Pacers or 150s, not what you'd want to increase the express service to Fishguard (it has less stops than the FGW INTERCITY service for goodness sakes). No, 153s/155s, 156s or prefrablly 158s are what we need for the Fishguard.
Cheltenham is 0.5tph (once per 2 hours) offpeak and 1tph peak, with a DMU service off peak also at 0.5tph.
I can see why the golden valley route is not being done there just isn't the usage to justify electrification from Swindon to Cheltenham and Bristol Parkway to Cheltenham. The via Parkway route would have to be done so that IEP electric could get to and from Cheltenham to the proposed new depot site near Parkway without having to ECS from London or go via Swindon.
However if Cheltenham > Bristol was electrified then local follow on extensions to Weston-super-mare & Taunton would enable all? local DMU services to be withdrawn.... and strengthen the case for XC pantograph car voyagers.
Swansea > Paddington is 2tph from 5am to 8:30am (8 trains), 2tph Paddington > Swansea 3:45pm to 8:15pm (8 trains). Then off peak Swanline DMU services add a further 1tph. So the route is in reality 2tph constantly, I'd suspect DFT would have liked WAG to contribute as near on 50% of services Cardiff <> Swansea are ATW DMU's.
The late evening HST's are admittedly more a positioning move to Landore for the following mornings service.
It'll be interesting to see how the TOC and Agility manage early morning starts at Swansea as IIRC no depot has been proposed in Wales and Landore TMD is not proposed to be used by Agility either. Nightly ECS runs from Bristol or remote stabling in sidings?
Having a few diesels running under the wires isn't the end of the world, compared to what is running now. Plenty of HSTs and 180s running under the wires on the ECML today, and even with IEP there's no reason to feel the need to rush and do it all overnight.
I quite like the idea that we're building a fairly standard fleet with interchangeable bits, and hope that it will continue to grow as time goes on - rather than having the building completed and then we all move on to something else non-standard a few years later.
I quite like the idea that we're building a fairly standard fleet with interchangeable bits, and hope that it will continue to grow as time goes on - rather than having the building completed and then we all move on to something else non-standard a few years later.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
Yes. When I see the amount of OHLE which remains underused and unused in sidings, branches and loops across the network its tempting to speculate about the rationale for having installed that expensive infrastructure.
On the one hand, the logic in the commissioning body of choosing to wire it as part of the same contract which was equipping the main line with OHLE at the same time rather than trim the costs and wait for future demand to pick up; versus, the thorough cost benefit analysis that prevails today, which undervalues all future potential.
We never have the opportunity to look at decisions with the benefit of hindight, but if we look at how this was considered in the past, and then apply hindsight, then it seems quite clear to me that we over-invested in small braches, yards and loops while failing to invest in the long distance mainlines.
Can we lear anything from that experience? well, I wouldn't want to extrapolate too much from that history, and the reasoning behind HS2 deals with some of the potential long distance opportunities, but I'd be equally confident in promoting examples of minor routes elsewhere which have sustained or even increased their demand long after electrification. In fact they're all over the place! So what's the problem with investment? (Unless its the flavour-of-the-month excuse that we're all in debt, which is, of course only a debt payable back to ourselves).
On the one hand, the logic in the commissioning body of choosing to wire it as part of the same contract which was equipping the main line with OHLE at the same time rather than trim the costs and wait for future demand to pick up; versus, the thorough cost benefit analysis that prevails today, which undervalues all future potential.
We never have the opportunity to look at decisions with the benefit of hindight, but if we look at how this was considered in the past, and then apply hindsight, then it seems quite clear to me that we over-invested in small braches, yards and loops while failing to invest in the long distance mainlines.
Can we lear anything from that experience? well, I wouldn't want to extrapolate too much from that history, and the reasoning behind HS2 deals with some of the potential long distance opportunities, but I'd be equally confident in promoting examples of minor routes elsewhere which have sustained or even increased their demand long after electrification. In fact they're all over the place! So what's the problem with investment? (Unless its the flavour-of-the-month excuse that we're all in debt, which is, of course only a debt payable back to ourselves).
Last edited:
Via London.
Blindtraveler
Established Member
wonder if they'll recast the aberdeen/inverness trains from Edinburgh as a 10 coach iep will be too long for many platforms and a 5 coach too short for current not to mention future demand esp to inverness. Maybe we'll see 2 extra aberdeen departures joining up at Waverley or newcastle and splitting northbound, with a similar move for inverness with maybe a later morning or ierly afternoon train? this would only need a recasting of times north of EDB as a further 5 coach portion could be booked to run in existing paths from EDB or run some of the newcastle-KX services as bi-mode with 1 portion running from north of edinburgh and joining there? Failing that, they may just require scotrail to make additional beds and seats available on highland sleapers? Also wonder if they may get round some capacity issues by scrapping direct london services from stonehaven, montrose, arbroath, kirkaldy and inverkeithing, or at least reducing them and encouraging people to travel to Edinburgh for the 225 services?
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
They arent permanent sets, you can reconfigure them to add or remove carriages to both EMU and DEMU versions, it depends really on how much spare coaching stock Hitachi are able to provide for strengthening.
Again this will make their classificaiton interesting. Even though not technically loco and stock could you class the driving cars as locomotives as they will be providing the power for the traction motors under the coaches?
Blindtraveler
Established Member
so that then begs the question are they going to have a number of semi perminant formations of 8 cars say, for use on scottish runs? cant see punterrs, particularly those from inverness liking the thought of 5 cars on there chieften.
- Status